ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
es By: Justice Hector L. Hofilea

l
ob
UPDATES IN LEGAL ETHICS
Selected Cases
R 2013 - 2015

an a r
Code of Professional Responsibility

B
Ch e s
l
Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote

b
respect for law and the legal processes.
o
R
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

a n
conduct.
a r
h Bactivities aimed at defiance of the law or
Cat lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule
s
1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
e
b l
A.C. No. 4191, July 8, 2013
R o
Anita C. Pea vs. Atty. Cristina C. Paterno

a n a r
but she suppressed copies of the deed of saleB
of sale notarized by her,h
Facts: A lady lawyer, entrusted with the title to a clients property, sold the same through a deed

C e s in order to hide her role.

Register for the month of November 1986, and a copy ofb

Held: The failure of respondent to submit to the proper l RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial
R
by her within that month, has far-reaching implications oand grave consequences, as it in effect
the Deed of Sale which was notarized

n
aauthenticity.
suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful conduct
a r
h B
of respondent to withhold the truth about its

A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013 C

e s
VICTORIA C. HEENAN vs. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO
b l
o
R filed a complaint for
Facts: Respondent borrowed P250,000.00 from the complainant and issued several checks
n
which were dishonored when presented to the drawee bank. Complainant
a ar
B
violation of BP 22 with the Quezon City Prosecutors Office, but its notice to appear was
disregarded by the respondent.
C h s
Held: Respondents issuance of worthless checks and disregard of the notice of the Quezon l e
b of
City

o
Prosecutors Office contravened Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7, of the Code

complainant what she owed, because the only issue in disbarment proceedings R
Professional Responsibility. However, the Court did not order the respondent to pay the

a n is whether or

1
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
not the lawyer concerned is still fit to remain a member of the Bar, and has no bearing on other

s
judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.

l e
b
A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

o
Rose Buagan Bansig vs. Atty. Roelio Juan A. Celera

R
n ar Court and IBP to file a comment on the complaint
Facts: Respondent lawyer was charged with immoral conduct for having married twice. He
a failed to comply with notices f0r the BSupreme

Ch Held: e s
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the Bar. He made
b l a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect

constituted a grossly o
and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting

R immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule

DISBARRED. n r
138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He also willfully disobeyed the orders of the court.
a B a
A.C.C
h s
No. 10240, Nov. 25, 2014
l e
b from the complainant which he promised to pay in
ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES

o
R he issued her three postdated checks which were
Facts: Respondent borrowed P2,200,000.00

subsequently dishonored for n ACCOUNT CLOSED. Despite demands for r

one month. To assure complainant,
a B a payment for the last

C h
three years, respondent still failed to pay.
s
l e checks constitute gross
misconduct. They are expected to maintain not only legalb
Held: Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless

o
proficiency but also a high standard of

R
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

A.C. No. 4697, Nov. 25, 2014

a n a r
h
FLORENCIO SALADAGA vs. ATTY. ARTURO ASTORGA B
C
Facts: Respondent lawyer sold a parcel of land, pacto de retro, to the e
s
b l complainant for

o
P15,000.00. He failed to redeem within the period agreed upon. Complainant was in possession

subsequently foreclosed. Complainant lost possession of the land. R

when he received notice that the land had been previously mortgaged to a rural bank, and

n r
Respondent claimed that the sale was actually and equitableamortgage and the fruits derived by a
the complainant from the property exceeded P15,000. h
B
C e s
b
Held: Regardless of the nature of the contract, respondents actuations clearly show a disregard l
R
for the highest standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty integrity and fair dealing.o
a n
2
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014

s
ERLINDA FOSTER vs. ATTY. JAIME AGTANG

l e
o b
Facts: Complainant retained the services of the defendant in relation to a legal problem arising

R
from a deed of sale between her and Tierra Royalty, which respondent had notarized. During

an r
the course of their relationship, the complainant gave the respondent the following amounts:

B a
Ch s
Acceptance fee .. P 20,000.00
e
b l
Incidental expenses . 5,000.00
Loan. 100,000.00

R o
Filing fee .. 150,000.00
Emergency loan . 22,000.00

an a r
To be given to the judge 50,000.00

B
Ch
For bottle of wine for the judge 2,500.00

es
l
Nevertheless, the complainants case was dismissed without the respondent informing her.

o b
Held: Respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct both in his
R
professional and private capacity. He demanded for high filing fees. He failed to return the

a n a r
excess of what he demanded. He received several amounts from the complainant but failed to

B
Ch
account for them. His act of demanding money for a bribe to the judge is an overt act of

s
undermining the trust and faith of the public in the legal profession and the Judiciary. He
e
l
likewise violated Rule 16.04 by borrowing money from his client. Finally, he is also guilty of

o b
conflict of interest in handling a case against Tierra Realty, a corporation he had served in the
past, and in questioning in the complainants case the very document he had notarized.
R
DISBARRED AND ORDERED TO REFUND the amounts intimately related to the lawyer-client

an a r
relationship.

B
Ch s
A.C. No. 10548, Dec. 10, 2014
CAROLINE CASTAEDA JIMENEZ vs. ATTY. EDGAR B. FRANCISCO
l e
o b
Facts: Respondent was corporate counsel of a family corporation of a friend. Subsequently, he
R
got embroiled in a family dispute involving the corporation. He was charged with conflict of
interest and reveling confidential information.
a n ar
B
Cinhactively and passively allowing Clariones
Held: While the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of interests and disclosure of

lthe
privileged communicati9on, the acts of Atty. Francisco

b
to make untruthful representations in the SEC and in other public documents, still constitute

Ro
malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney, for which a suspension from
practice of law for six (6) months is warranted.

a n
Ch
3

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Acratomy S. Guarin Vs. Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin

s
A.C. No. 10576. January 14, 2015

l e
b
Facts: Corporate Secretary of a corporation filed General Information Sheets containing names

R
her.o
of stockholders and members of the Board of Directors based only on what the Chairman told

anHeld:
an infraction which did not conformB
a
We thus find that in filing a GIS thatrcontained false information, Atty. Limpin committed
C h s
to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 of the CPR.
e
lthat in allowing herself to be swayed by the business practice of
b
o appoint the members of the BOD and officers of the corporation
We also agree with the IBP

R
having Mr. de Los Angeles

an has transgressed Rule 1.02 of theBCPR ar

despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with respect to the election of such
officers, Atty. Limpin

A.C.C
h s
No. 10670, September 8, 2015
l e
b
ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA vs. ATTY. IAN RAYMOND T. PANGALANGAN

o with illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of

Runscrupulous
Facts: Complainant charged respondent

a series of adulterous relationsn r sabotaged a case

authority as an educator, and other activities. Although married, respondent had
a with married and unmarried women, He also
a
B gestures
C h
he handled as a member of the OGCC. As a professor of law, he induced his male students to
sopted not to ofpresent
engage in nocturnal preoccupations and entertained the
l e
romantic his female

b conference.
students in exchange for a passing grade. Respondent any

o
counterstatement of facts and failed to attend the mandatory

Rby making a mockery out of the institution

Held: Respondent displayed deplorable arrogance
a n a r
of marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills, refusing to participate in the proceedings.
h
His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member B of the
C
Bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.
e s
Canon 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate b lin continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in lawo
R jurisprudence.
schools as well as in the

an r
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating the law and

B a
SAMUEL B. ARNADO v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA h
A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015
C s
Facts: In his pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respondent had indicated b le
MCLE
application for exemption under process, and in a pleading filed in 2012, he indicated o
Rexemption
MCLE

n
Application for Exemption for Reconsideration. Respondent had applied for MCLE
on the ground of expertise in law, but the request was denied in 2009. He was
a notified about
4
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
it only in 2012. He filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in 2013.

es
Held: Respondent was declared delinquent member of the IBP and suspended from the practice

b l
of law for 6 months or until he has complied with the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd and 4TH Compliance Periods,

o
whichever is later, and he has fully paid the compliance and reinstatement fees.

R
n r
Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
a official tasks. a
Bgovernment service shall not use his public position to
Ch s
hiseprivate interests nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the
promote or advancel
duties.
o b
R18, 2013
a n
A.C. NO. 7332, June
EDUARDO C. ABELLA vs. GERARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.
a r
h Bwrit of execution for over one year, despite
C
Facts: Respondent Labor Arbiter delayed issuance s
e a writ after soliciting from the complainant
of

b
motions of the complainant, and finally issued
l
Ro reduced
(how much is mine?). When the employer filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, the
respondent issued a new one for a much amount. The same was annulled by the NLRC

a n
on the ground that the LA had no authority
r
to reduce the amount awarded by the CA.
a
h
Held: Thus, as respondents violations constitute gross immoral conduct B and gross misconduct,
his disbarment shouldC come as a matter of course.
e s
b l
ovs. Ricardo G.Barrios which therefore
However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a

Rsame.
previous administrative case entitled Sps. Rafols Jr.

n
precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the
a a r
A.C. No. 9491, October 22, 2013
h B
C
JOCELYN DE LEON vs. ATTY. TYRONE PEDREA
e s
b l
o
Facts: PAO lawyer made immoral advances on his client.

R were not merely offensive

n r
Held: Given the circumstances in which he committed them, his acts
and undesirable, but repulsive, disgraceful and grossly immoral.
a B a
C h s
e
A.C. N0. 5377, June 30, 2014
VICTOR C. LINGAN vs. ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY F. BALIGA
b l
documents in their stead. Subsequently, the complainant reported him to be R
Facts: Respondents were suspended for one year for allowing their secretaries to o notarize

n
continuing to
practice law by discharging his functions as Director of the Commission on Human
a Rights.

Ch
5

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B allorders
s
Held: When this court a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must

l e This includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring

desist from performing functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the

b to practice law. Performing the functions of a CHR Regional Director constituted

period of suspension.

R o
the authority
practice of law.

n
a A.C. a r
B LL. MAYOR, JR.
No. 7314, August 25, 2015

C h MARY ANN FLORES vs. ATTY. JOVENCIO

sdelayed for more than 2 years the issuance of a writ of
e
l company. The writ was returned unsatisfied because the
b
Facts: Respondent Labor Arbiter

oits name. A motion to amend the writ of execution was denied by the
execution against an employer
company had changed
R
n r
respondent on the ground that the new company was not a party to the case.
a a
h B
s to delay no man for money or malice.
Held: Respondents acts constituted a breach of his accountability as a public officer to th
CFurthermore, he violated his oath as ea lawyer
public.
DISBARRED.
b l
RoBar. the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold

n
support the activities of the Integrated
a a r
h B reflects on his fitness to
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
practice law,C nor shall he, whether in public or privateslife, behave in a scandalous
l e
b
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

A.C. No. 6420, July 8, 2013 o

RC. Gacott
n
Ella Tabang and Concepcion Tabang vs. Atty. Glenn
a a r
h
Facts: Lawyer knew that his clients bought a parcel of land under the names of Bfictitious
C e s
persons. He entrusted with the titles when he offered to help his clients sell the same. Later, he
l
claimed that the titles were lost, when the fact is that he was able to sell the lands without
b
Ro
informing his clients.

n r
Held: While it may be true that the complainant Ella Tabang herself engaged in illicit activities,

respondents offense. Quite the contrary, his offense is evenamade graver. He is a lawyer who is a
the complainants own complicity does not negate or even mitigate the repugnancy of

C h and fair dealing. . Thus, we s B

e
held to the highest standards of morality, honesty, integrity
impose upon respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.
b l
R o
a n
6
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
A.C. No. 6832, October 22, 2013

s
Atty. Oscar L. Embido vs. Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr.

l e
b
Specifically, the deliberate of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a

R o
high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made it a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification which was to

anA.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014 r

mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person.

B a
Ch e s
RAUL M. FRANCIA vs. ATTY. REYNALDO V. ABD0N

b l
o
Facts: Respondent Labor Arbiter was charged with having asked for P1 million from an electric

R
cooperative to facilitate a favorable decision pending in the Court of Appeals. But the case was

an r
decided against the cooperative. However, the evidence presented showed that it was not the
respondent but a certain Vistan who asked for the money.
B a
Ch es
Held: In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of a lawyer

b l
stands. Nevertheless, respondent was held liable for violating Rule 7 by introducing Vistan to

o
the cooperative.

Chamelyn A. Agot vs. Atty. Luis P. R

A.C. No. 8000. August 5, 2014 n r
Rivera
a a
Bwhich led complainant to
C h himself as an immigration lawyer, s
Facts: Respondent misrepresented
l e
b of the visa . In truth, however,
seek his assistance in securing her US visa. He charged her P350,000.00 as down payment for

respondent has no specialization in immigration lawo

his legal services, and another P350,000.00 after issuance

Rthe complainant, after allegedly giving the

but merely had a contact with Pineda, a

down payment to Pineda.

a n
purported US consul. He failed to secure the visa for
a r
h B and
C s
e him unfit to
Held: Undoubtedly, respondents deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful,
l
dishonorable to the legal profession; it reveals a basic moral flaw that makes
b
o
practice law.

R he received the same as

n r
Suspended for 2 years and ordered to return the P350,000.00, since
part of his legal fees.
a B a
A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457. February 3, 2015 h s
C e
MELVYN V. GARCIA vs. RAUL H. SESBREO
b l
against him. Subsequently, his penalty was commuted by the President. He movedR
Facts: Respondent was convicted of homicide and disbarment proceedings were o brought

n
for dismissal
of the disbarment proceedings on the ground of executive pardon.
a
7
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
Bhas been granted pardon, there is nothing in the records that shows that
it was a full andsunconditional pardon. In addition, the practice of law is not a right but a
Held: Even if Sesbreo

privilege. 19lIte
bstandards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty
is granted only to those possessing good moral character. 20 A violation of the

o
high moral

R turpitude.
against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment. Homicide is considered a crime involving

nmoral
a A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015 a r
B
Ch PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE vs. ATTY. e sEVA PATTA-MOYA

Facts: Suspended lawyer b

l
o
continued to practice law during period of suspension.

Held: RespondentR
a
suspended from n the practice of law for an additional periodr
found guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and
a of six (6) months.
h B
A.C.CNo. 7594, March 15, 2015
e s
b l
ALVIN S. FELICIANO vs. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA

Facts: Atty. Lozada appeared in court

R o as counsel for her husband during the period of her

n
suspension. She claimed good faith.
a a r
Held: Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty, but thisB
that it is part of theC
h Court recognizes the fact
sto a spouse.
l e
Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and

b for her husband and that, in

extend a helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, Thus, considering

o
that Atty. Lozadas actuation was prompted by her affection

R
essence, she was not representing a client rather than a spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate
the severeness of her penalty.
a n a r
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor B
C h s
toward his

e
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

b l which is abusive,
Ro
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not in his professional dealings use language
offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, n r

employment of another lawyer; however, it is the a a
encroach upon the professional

C h seeking relief against unfaithful or s B

right of an lawyer, without fear or

e
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
neglectful counsel .
b l
R o
a n
8
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014

s
Atty. Alan F Paguia vs. Atty. Manuel T. Molina

l e
b
Facts: Atty. Paguia filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Molina for allegedly giving

o
wrong advice to his clients.

R
n rshowing that his act was attended with bad faith or
Held: Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal advice, he still cannot
a bemalice. a
B bytolawyers
held administratively liable without any

C h s
The rule on mistakes committed in the exercise of their profession is as
follows: An attorney-at-law is
e
not expected know all the law. For an honest mistake or error,
lJustice Abbott said that, no attorney is bound to know all the law;
God forbid that it should b
an attorney is not liable. Chief

know all the law. o

be imagined that an attorney or a counsel, or even a judge, is bound to

R
a n
A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015
a r
h NOBLE, JR. vs. ATTY. ORLANDO AILES B
s
MAXIMINO
C
Facts: Complainant discovered that in text e
b l and charged exorbitant fees, snd referred to
messages to his client, respondent had been

Ro
maligning him, claiming that he was incompetent
him as abogado mong polpol.

a
Held: Though a lawyers language n may be forceful and emphatic, it should a ralways be dignified
h
and respectful, befitting the dignity of he legal profession. In the B Indulging
courts mind, the text
messages we intended C to malign and destroy the
e s
complainant. in offensive
personalities constitutes unprofessional conduct.
b l
Canon 9 - A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assisto
R
in the unauthorized practice of law.

Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide orn stipulate to divide a fee for legal servicesr
a B a with

C h
persons not licensed to practice law.
s
A.C. No. 9804, March 20, 2013
l e
Rodrigo Tapay vs. Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo and Atty. Janus T. Jarder
o b
R in his stead.
ato him. Although he may delegate Bar
n
Facts: A lawyer admitted to having authorized his secretary sign pleadings

Ch it to a non-lawyer.
Held: Atty. Bancolos authority to sign a pleading is personal
the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate
e s
B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013 b l
Ro
In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys

a n that he had
Facts: Successful Bar examinee practiced law for several years, mistakenly believing

Ch
9

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
signed the roll of attorneys when he had not. Upon discovery of his fault, he filed a petition to

s
be allowed to sign the said roll.

l e
b
Held: While reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the

R o
unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is
subsumed under this provision because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyers duty to prevent

anA.C. NO.4545, February 5, 2014 Bar

the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates.

Ch CARLITO ANG vs. ATTY. JAMESeGUPANA s

b l
o staff, to investigate whether the documents are complete as to
Facts: Respondent averred that it had been his consistent practice to course the documents to

R
be notarized to his clerical

order, they askn r them to him, and affixes his

fundamental requirements, and to the identities of the signatories thereto. If everything is in
a a
the parties to sign the documents and forward
after aqain inquiring about the identities ofB
h
signature
C s the completeness of the documents,
the parties.

l e
respondent volated Rule 9.01 and is liableb
Held: In relying on his clerical staff to determine

o
for misconduct/

A.C. No. 8103, December 3, 2014 R

ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES vs.n r
a ATTY. RENATO BAGAY a
Bnotarized 18 documents
Facts: Complainant C
h s
e notarization was done by his
charged respondent with negligence for having
l
b
when he was out of the country. Respondent replied that such

o
secretary without his knowledge and authority.

Held: Respondent violated Canon 9 by leaving hisR

a n a
allowed his secretary to notarize documents without restraint. He also violated Canon 7 which r
office open despite his absence and virtually

h B
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
C e s
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
b l
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to o
R to be misled.
the doing of any in court;

an r
nor shall he mislead the court by any artifice, or allow the court

B a
Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. vs. Atty. Nonatus P. Chua h
A.C. No. 6042, July 1, 2013
C e s
Facts: Respondent filed a petition for issuance of a search warrant against the complainant, b lon
the ground that it was infringing on a patent. He did not mention that the patent had
R o already

n
expired.

a
10
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Held: Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioners honourable

s
membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of

e
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with their
l
b
clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts.

R o
A.C. 4549, Dec. 2, 2013

ar for making a false allegation in the Answer he

anFacts: Respondent was charged withBdishonesty
NESTOR V. FELIPE, et al. vs. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL

Ch prepared, e s
introducing a false marriage certificate, and filing a baseless motion to recall writ of
execution.
b l
Held: If the matter o
R arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability and do not directly

judicial action n r authority.

require an inquiry into the moral fitness of a lawyer, the matter would be a proper subject of a
awhich is outside the purview of the CourtsB a disciplinary

A.C.C
h s
No. 10568. January 13, 2015
l e
b
Marilen G. Soliman Vs. Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy

Facts: Complainant hired respondento

titles for the individual lots of the R
to register a partition agreement and secure separate

a n
to her contact in the RD. Complainant paid only P50,000. Notwithstanding
a r no individual title
former co-owners. Respondent asked for P100,000 to be paid

was issued. A check with the RD showed that the delay was dueB
C h to respondents failure to
s P50,000.
submit some documents. The RD denied having asked for or
l e
received

Held: Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence andb

oprocesses, which she swore to uphold
incompetence by a counsel in dealing

and defend. In swearing to the oath, Atty. AmboyR

with a client. Atty. Amboys acts undermined the legal

an r
bound herself to respect the law and legal
processes.
B a
C h s
e
A.C. No. 7325. January 21, 2015
Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr. Vs. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol
l
b he asked for a
R
Facts: Respondent appeared for landowner in an agrarian case. Subsequently, o
a away at the time he filed the Bar
n
writ of execution, without stating that his clied already died.

Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution h

Held: However, Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed
C and Demolition. As an honest, prudentes
and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his clients passing and
presented authority that he was retained by the clients successors-in-interest and thus b lthe
Ro
parties may have been substituted.

a n
Ch
11

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial

s
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

l e
b
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive and menacing language or

R o behavior before the courts.

an r
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record

B a
or having no materiality to the case.

Ch e s
A. C. No. 8954, November 11, 2013

b l
Hon. Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan vs. Atty. Rodolfo Flores

R o
Facts: Judge Manahan reported Atty. Flores to the Supreme Court for filing a motion containing

n
disrespectful language.
a a r
Held: h B
C to be temperate in his language es
Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. Atty. Flores is
expected

b l
Edgardo Arreola vs. Atty. Maria Vilmao
A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014

R Mendoza
a n prisoners and advised them to appeal
Facts: PAO lawyer met with detention
a rto the judge for the
dismissal of their cases.
h B
C s
e clients to approach the judge
l
and plead for compassion so that their motions could bebgranted. This admission corresponds
Held: Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her

Ro
to one of Arelas charges against Atty. Mendoza, that she told her clients Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo
si Judge Martin at palalayasin na kayo. Malambot
a
appear that the judge is easily moved if a party nresorts to dramatic antics such as begging
ang puso noon. Atty. Mendoza made it
a rand
h
crying in order for their cases to be dismissed. B
C
As such, the Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. eMendoza made
s
b l of the Code of
Ro
irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule15.07
Professional Responsibility.

A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014

an B ar
AMADO T. DIZON vs. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA
C h s
Facts: Lawyer asked for P75,000 from each of her clients to facilitate a favorable decision
l e
pending in the Supreme Court. They subsequently discovered that the case had been decided
o b
R
against them all along.

Held: Atty. De Tazas actuations towards the complainant and his siblings were
a n even worse as
12
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
she had the gall to make it appear to the complainant that the proceedings before the Court can

s
be expedited and ruled in their favor in exchange for an exorbitant amount of money. Said

e
scheme was employed by Atty.De Taza just to milk money from her client. Without a doubt,
l
b
Atty. De Tazas actions are reprehensible and her greed more than apparent when she even

o
used the name of the Court to defraud her client.

R
n r
Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
a efficientRule a
12.02. A lawyer shall notB
administration of justice.

C h sshall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a

file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

e
lcourt processes.
b
Rule 12.04 A lawyer

o
judgment, or misuse

R
an III Vs. Atty. Romeo S. GonzalesBar
A.C. No. 6760. January 30, 2013
Anastacio N. Teodoro

C h
Lawyer filed petition for settlement of s
annulment of contract, without mentioning theependency of the former action.
Facts: estate of a dead person and civil case for

b l
Held: While the reliefs prayed for ino
R resolved
the initiatory pleadings of the two cases are different in

a n
form, a ruling in one case would have the other, and vice versa.
a r
h
Thus, the relief prayed for, the facts upon which it is based, and the Bparties arearepresent,
substantially
C
Gonzales committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Casee
similar n the two cases. Since the elements of res judicata and s
litis pendentia Atty.

that Special Proceedings No. 99-95587 was still pending.b

l No. 00-99207 without indicating

Ro
anZ. A. NAZARENO r
A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014
EUFROCINA CRISOSTOMO, et al. vs. ATTY. PHILIP
B a
h
Facts: Lawyer filed 6 complaints for ejectment with a uniform certification s
C e
against forum
shopping which he notarized and assigned the same document number.
b l
Held: In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made o
R for which he should be
false declarations in the

n r
certifications against forum shopping attached to Rudexs pleadings,
held administratively liable.
a a
C h only one document number to the s B
e
Separately, he was found guilty of malpractice in assigning
six certifications he notarized.
b l
Canon 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
R o
n
which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court

a
13
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook or invite interferences from another branch or

s
agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.

l e
b
Dante LA Jimenez & Lauro G. Vizconde Vs. Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr./Atty. Oliver O. Lozano

R o
Vs. Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr.
A.C. No. 8108/A.C. No. 10299. July 15, 2014

anFacts: a r of a charge of drug pushing but were not yet

Bdrafted
The respondents clients were acquitted

C h released from detention. Respondent

s
a letter ordering the release of his clients, and
brought it to the Secretary
e
of Justice to be signed, The Secretary did not sign, but the
l charge against the respondent for misconduct.
b
complainants filed an administrative

R o conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special

Held: The way respondent

a
behavior sought nto be regulated by the codified norms forar
treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper
the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to
activelyh B
sprocess is diluted.
avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an
C case, lest the peoples faith in the judicial
ongoing
e
b l fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
Ro
Canon 15 A lawyer shall observe candor,
transactions with his client.

a n not represent conflicting interests except

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall
a rby written consent
h
of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts. B
C
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client e
s
b l compliance with the laws and

o
principles of fairness.

R profession or occupation concurrently

a n
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another
a r or
with the practice of law shall make clear to the client whether he is acting as a lawyer
in another capacity.
h B
C e s
A.C, No. 10538, Feb. 23, 2015
b l
o
Michael Ruby vs. Atty. Erlinda Espejo and Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot

Facts: Atty. Bayot denied lawyer-client relationship.Atty. EspejoR

the case that was filed, and it was only Atty. Espejo who n
a and the motion to serve Bar
was the counsel of record in
signed the retainer agreement.

summons through publication. He likewise appeared h

However, Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint
C as counsel for the complainant in thees
ofl
hearings of the case before the RTC. He likewise advised the complainant on the status of the
case. More importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00, which is partb the

Ro
acceptance fee indicated in the retainer agreement, from the complainant.

Held: A lawyer-client relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the

a n complainant.
Ch
14

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Nevertheless, liabulity of a lawyer atraches only to those duties he is personally liable for.

es
A.C. NO. 9537, June 10, 2013

b l
DR. TERESITA LEE vs. ATTY AMADOR J. SIMANDO

R o
Facts: Atty. Simando was a retained counsel of Dr. Lee. He persuaded her to lend money to

an r
another client. Felicito Mejorada, and even offered to sign the promissory notes as co-maker.

B a
When Mejorada failed to pay, Dr. Lee asked Atty. Simando to file a case against him. Atty

Ch s
Simando failed to do so. Dr. Lee filed an administrative case against him.

l e
b
Held: It must be stressed that the prescription against representation of conflicting interests

o
finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter

R
however slight the adverse interest may be. It applies even if the conflict pertains to the

n r
lawyers private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity.
a a
A.C. No.h B
s
6664, July 16, 2013
C
FERDINAND SAMSON vs. ATTY. EDGARDO ERA
e
b l
o scam under the name of ICS Exports, Inc. Atty. Era
Facts: Samson and his relatives retained Atty. Era to assist them in the prosecution of Sison and

prepared and filed a complaint forR

his group, who engaged in a pyramiding

a nin which Sison and his group, by whichatherlatter will turn over
to accept an amicable settlement
estafa against Sison, et al. Thereafter, he persuaded Samson

h
a property to them. They acceded, but later found out that the title Bto thetheproperty was no
longer in the name C
e sin other estafa cases. Atty. but
of ICS. They looked for Atty. Era who had guaranteed settlement,
they found that he was already representing Sison and his group
l
b between him and the Samsons.
Era

o
argued that there was no longer any lawyer-client relationship

Held: The execution of an amicable settlement inR

a n a criminal case, would apply only to the civil
a
aspect, not the criminal aspect. The termination of a lawyer- client relationship does not justify r
a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of a former client.B
C h s
Even after

e
the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his
l
former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client.
b
even to himself. The protection given to the client is perpetual. R
The lawyers highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client o at all hazards and costs

an B ar
DARIA O. DAGING vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALONG L. DAVIS h
A.C. No. 9395, Nov. 12, 2014
C e s
Facts: Davis & Reyes Law Office was the retained counsel of the complainant, who owned l
blounge
and

was taken over by the lessor, accompanied by the respondent Respondent filed R
operated the Nashville Country Music Lounge, Baguio City. For failure to pay rent, the o
n
an ejectment

a
case against the lessor, and the latter was represented by the respondent. Charged with conflict

Ch
15

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
of interest, respondent argued that it was only his partner which entered into a retainership

s
agreement with the complainant, and he never obtained any knowledge or information

e
regarding the business of the complainant who used to consult only his partner.
l
o b
Held: A lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the

R
services of his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and

an r
undermines the integrity of justice. Respondents argument that he never took advantage of

B a
any information acquired by his law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the

Ch s
complainant, is of no moment

l e
b
A.C. No. 10587, Feb. 25, 2015

o
Wilfredo Anglo vs. Atty. Jose Ma. Valencia, et al.

R
an r
Facts: Respondents were charged with conflict of interests in filing a criminal case against
a
parties whom they previously represented in labor cases. Their defense is that their association
B
h s acceptance of the criminal case arose from
was not a formal partnership but a special arrangement.
C e
l by which it would have been able to keep track of
b
Held: As the Court observes, the law firms unethical

o to the end of, among others, ensuring that every

its failure to organize and implement a system

engagement it accepts stands clearR

all cases assigned to its handling lawyers

a n of any potential conflict of interest.

a r
B
Ch
A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015
MABINI COLLEGES, INC. vs, ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO
e s
l
bof mortgage
o
Facts: In 1996, respondent was appointed corporate secretary of complainant corporation. In

R for the bank.

2002, the complainant filed complaint for annulment with the Rural Bank of

n
Paracale. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel
a a r
h B
Held: Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. This rule prohibits a lawyer from
C
representing new whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner,
e s whether or
l
not they are parties in the same action of on totally unrelated cases. Evidence showed that the
b
o
respondent had been paid attorneys fees by complainant.

Canon 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and propertiesR

an r
of his client that may come
into his possession.
B a
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all moneyh or property collected or received for or s
C e
from the client.
b l
R
Rule 16.02- A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from o his own

n
and those of others kept by him.

a
16
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests

s
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.

l e
b
A.C. No. 7965, November 14, 2013

o
AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA vs. ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN

R
n rfor litigation and registration expenses. Respondent
Facts: Complainant retained the services of the respondent for the registration of a parcel of
a land a
failed to fulfill his undertaking after B
in 6 months, and gave him P54,000.00

C h s
more than 3 years. Complainant demanded the return of
her money to no avail.
e
Respondent replied that he could not register the land because its
l He was willing to return the balance of the money given
him but he was preventedbfrom doing so because the complainant maligned him in his office.
ownership was still under litigation.

R o
nto account for the money given him. Theacourt r ordered him suspended for one
Held: The Court held that complainants purported act of maligning respondent does not
a
justify his failure
year, buth B
C hence, its return partakes the natureeofsa purely civil liability.
did not order the return of the money given him because it was given for registration
expenses,

b l
Ro JR., et al.
A.C. No. 5044, December 2, 2013
FELIPE C. DEGALA v. ATTY. JOSEC. QUESADA,

Facts: Complainant filed a casen rcase was dismissed

a a
in the NLRC, assisted by Atty. Quesada. The
B conference
C h
due to failure of complainant and counsel to appear at a mandatory
s
twice.

company offered to pay complainant P74,000 .00 by way ofesettlement, conditioned on the
Complainant filed the case again, assisted by Atty. Adquilen. A representative of the respondent

submission of a position paper. But Atty. Adquilen failed b

l
Ro
to submit a position paper, resulting in
a dismissal of the case. Complainant filed an administrative case against Attys. Quesada and

anrespondent company as settlement.Bar

Adquilen. The IBP recommended that they both be suspended and ordered to pay the
complainant P74,000.00, the amount offered by

C h s
e
Held: The Court concurred with the finding that the respondents were negligent, but not with
the order to pay P74,000.00, which was in the nature of a civil liability
b l
Ro
A.C. No. 7337, Sept. 29, 2014

an in a labor case against his Bar

ROLANDO VIRAY vs. ATTY. EUGENIO T. SANICAN

Facts: Complainant retained the services of the respondent

C hClaiming that he was authorized to s
e
employers. The NLRC awarded complainant P189,491.60.
receive payments, respondent collected P85,000.00 from the employers but did not deliver it to
the complainant. Respondent claimed that complainant agreed to pay him an additional b l
25%
o
R fees and
attorneys fees, and the P95,000.00 was not even enough t to cover his fees and reimbursement

n
of expenses. Bur he failed to present any agreement to pay him additional
reimbursement of expenses.
a
17
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
Held: RespondentsB
s
failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and

l e
upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral

b
soundness, and warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.

o
RNo. 10681. February 3, 2015
Spouses Henry A. Concepcion and Blesida S. Concepcion Vs. Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa

nA.C.
a Facts: As above-discussed, respondent a r
h B
s
borrowed money from complainants who were his
C clients and whose interests,
e
by the lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected.

word that he will returnb

l in respondent, complainants relied solely on the formers
Owing to their trust and confidence

abused the same ando

the money plus interest within five (5) days. However, respondent

R reneged on his obligation, giving his previous clients the runaround up to

this day.
a n a r
Held: It h B
s as a member of the Bar. 52 In such cases,
is settled that in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the
Cof the court is still fit to be allowed to continue
the Court's only concern is the determinatione
officer

b l from his client in a transaction separate, distinct,

of respondent's administrative liability; it should

Ro andengagement.
not involve his civil liability for money received
and not intrinsically linked to his professional In this case, respondent received the

Hence, the IBP's recommendedn r the ambit of this

P2,500,000.00 as a loan from complainants not in consideration of his professional services.
a a
return of the aforementioned sum lies beyond
B
C h
administrative case, and thus cannot be sustained.
s
l e
b
A.C. No. 10438, Sept. 23, 2014

o
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC. vs. NICOLAS C. TORRES

R respondent recommended approval of

Facts: As Claims Manager of complainant company,
a n
claims and issuance of checks to several seamen. However, the checks were not given to
a rthe
h
seamen but deposited respondents bank account . B
C s
e of trust and
Held: Clearly, respondents acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse
b l
Ro
confidence reposed in him by the complainant, and betrayal of his clients interests which he is
duty-bound to protect. DISBARRED.

n r
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR. a a
A.C. No. 10672. March 18, 2015
h B
C e s
Facts: Respondent given P48,000 as filing fee for a case to be filed by him. He failed to file and
to return the money to his client, b l
o
R Since the
n
Held: Respondent suspended for one year and ordered to return the P48,000.
aforesaid amount was intended to answer for filing fees which is intimately
a related to the
18
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
lawyer client relationship between complainant and respondent, the Court finds the return

s
thereof to be in order.

l e
b
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and

o
confidence reposed in him.

R
n r
Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
a Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent hisBaclient
C h s
with zeal within the bounds of the law.

e
l M. MILLO
b
A.C. No. 9612, March 13, 2013

o
JOHNNY M. PESTO vs. MARCELITO

R
anHe also delayed answering to the charges r
Facts: Lawyer charged for delays in rendering service to client and giving client false information
to justify delays.
B a against him.

Held:C
h s
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed ine
Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his client. He must ever be

b l him by the client.

A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013 o

R T. VILLASECA
n
MARY ANN T. MATTUS vs. ATTY ALBERT
a a r
Facts: Respondent was counsel for the complainants in a case for B
public document. HeC
h
was often absent during court hearings but s
estafa with falsification of

l e examination of questioned
still collected appearance fees,

documents, failed to file a demurrer to evidence in spite b

frequently asked for postponements, failed to ask for NBI

o
of having been granted time to file the

presentation of the evidence for the defense and R

same, failed to present evidence for the defense, failed to notify his clients of the dates of

an in their conviction. r
promulgation of judgment, and indicated the
wrong case number in the notice of appeal, resulting
a
Bcourts and
C h s
society indicate a high degree of irresponsibility that casts dishonor on the e
Held: His incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the

b l legal profession.

o
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 5 years.

R
Spouses George & Aurora Warriner vs. Atty. Rene M. Dublin n r
A.C. No. 5239. November 16, 2013

a B a
Ch the evidence was fabricated. es
Facts: Lawyer deliberately neglected a case because he believed

Held: Respondent deliberately mishandled his case. This is improper. If the lawyer believes b lthat
the exhibits to be presented are fabricated, he has the option to withdraw fromo
R
the case

n
pursuant to Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

a
Ch
19

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
A.C. No. 4046, October 8, 2013

s
Ma. Jennifer Tria-Samonte vs. Epifania Fanny Obias

l e
b
Facts: Lawyer who received purchase price from her client to buy a piece of land, and received

R o
the title from the seller, notarized a deed of sale of the same property in favor of another
person.

anHeld: Far from protecting the interestsa ofr

B reposed
her clients, respondent participated and was even

C h instrumental in bringing about

s
the defeat of their rights over the same property. Hence , she
grossly violated the trust and
l e
confidence on her by her clients.

A.C. No. 7766. August 5, b

RoS. Diamante
2014
Jose Allan Tan Vs. Pedro

In view of the n ra crooked and deceitful scheme to

a foregoing, respondents conduct of employing
in the dark and conceal his casesB
a
h
keep complainant
courtC sdishonorable;
true status through the use of a falsified

l e
order evidently constitutes Gross Misconduct. His acts should not just be deemed as

b
unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and they reveal a basic moral flaw

o
that makes him unfit to practice law.

R
A.C. Np. 10196, September 9, 2014
n
a A. SAMPANA
MELODY N. NERY vs. ATTY. GLICERIO
a r
h B
Facts: Complainant C retained services of respondent to secure an s
e for his fees in the adoption
annulment of her marriage
and her adoption by an alien adopter. She paid him P100,000.00
l
b filed in court. However, when she
o
case, and he told her that the petition had already been

R
checked in the court, she found out that no petition had been filed.

a n
Held: Verily, Sampana neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. He even kept the money
a r
h
given him in violation of the Codes mandate to deliver the clients funds upon demand B
C e s
Suspended for 3 years and ordered to return P100,000.00 with interest.
b l
Canon 20 A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
R o
n r
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest,a a
Rule 20.03 A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of his client,

other compensation whatsoever related to his h

rebate or forwarding allowance or
professional employment from anyone s
B
C e
other than the client.
b l
R o
Rule 20.04 A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation

n
and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

a
20
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
A.C. No. 5359. March 10, 2014

s
EMERLINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ vs. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON. SR.

l e
b
Facts: Respondent was retained to file a case for damages against the Municipality of Caraga.

R o
He prepared the complaint but did not file it because of the failure of his client to pay the
balance of the filing fee and his 30% attorneys fees

anHeld: a ar
B full attention whether he accepts this for a fee or
The respondents justification is not valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability.

C h Every case entrusted to a lawyer

s
deserves his
for free.
l e
A.C. No. 9991, Decemberb

Ro et al. vs. ATTY. JUAN B. BAEZ, JR.

11, 2013
CONCHITA A. BALTAZAR,

a n retained the services of respondentatorrecover their land from a developer

Facts: Complainants
h B
C for legal services in which it wasesagreed
who failed to comply with their development agreement. Complainants and respondent signed
a contract that the complainants will not pay

b
acceptance of appearance fees to the respondent,
l but that the docket fees would instead be

of the properties. Respondent sent ao

shared by the parties, and the respondent would be paid 50% of whatever would be recovered

R demand letter to the developer and subsequently filed a

a n with the developer. They filed a motion

complaint against him. Complainants
entered into an amicable settlement r for withdrawal of
found it hard to wait for the results of the action and
a
the complaint which was opposed by the respondent who also filedB
C h s
a Notice of Charging Lien.

been able to enjoy the fruits of their property because of him. e

The complainants filed an administrative complaint against him, claiming that they have not

b l
advising his clients not to accept the offer of theR
o Responsibility. He was correct in
Held: The respondent did not violate the Code of Professional

property worth P35 million. A lawyer has a right

a nto intervene in a case to protect his righta rto a
developer to pay them P10 million for their

compensation.
h B
C s
eis in the nature
However, the contract for legal services he has executed with the complainants
l
b a lawyer from
lending money to a client, except when in the interest of justice, he o
of a champertous agreement. It is also contrary to Rule 16.04 which prohibits

Rrespondent lost sight of his

has to advance necessary

responsibility in balancing his clients interests with the ethical n r

expenses in the legal matter they are handling for the client. Clearly,

a standards of his profession.

B a
Respondent was ADMONISHED.
Ch e s
Corazon M. Dalupan vs. Atty. Glenn C. Gacott b l
A.C. 5067, June 29, 2015
R o
Facts: Complainant retained the services of respondent to handle criminal cases
a n against her and
21
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
her son.

es
She paid him P5,000 as acceptance fee. Subsequently, she terminated the lawyer-client

b l
relationship for loss of confidence, and demanded the return of the P5,000.

R o
Held: An acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting a case.

an r
This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from handling the

B a
case of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, he incurs and

Ch s
opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client which is therefore indemnified by

e
the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee only seeks to compensate the lawyer
l
b
for a lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of the legal services

o
rendered.

R
an B a r
Ch es
b l
R o
a n a r
B
Ch es
b l
R o
an B a r
Ch es
b l
R o
an B ar
Ch es
bl
R o
an
Ch
22

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph