C. Clients money and Properties.

The relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest order. It is
highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.

i. Fiduciary Relationship, Attorney-Client Relationship

Josefina Caranza Vda de Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749,
July 8, 2013

Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost
trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be
ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of
diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill,
and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free. A lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal
advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or
tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the
required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and
urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or
her to do so. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact
formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyers mere failure to
perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.

ii. Co-mingling of Funds.

Lawyers must promptly account for money or property they receive on behalf of their clients.
Failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary
sanctions.

Gil. T. Aquino v. Atty. Wenceslao C. Barcelona, A.C. No. 5668. April 19, 2002

Quisumbing, J.:

Respondent misrepresented to the complainant that he could secure the

restructuring of the complainants loan with the PNB through his connection with
a certain Gonzalo Mericullo, legal assistant in the PNB. Based on such
misrepresentation, respondent asked and received the amount of P60,000.00
 from the complainant allegedly to be paid to the PNB. It turned out that there was
no such employee in the PNB by the name Gonzalo Mericullo and the
complainants property was eventually foreclosed.

iii. Delivery of Funds.

Fermina Legaspi Daroy et al. v. Atty. Ramon Chaves Legaspi

Aquino, J.:

A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or
malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is
obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his
possession (otherwise a violation of Sec. 25, Rule 138 of ROC). He should not
commingle it without his clients consent. He should maintain a reputation for
honesty and fidelity to private trust. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on
money in his hands would not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting
for the funds received.

Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr., A.C. No. 5019, April 6, 2000

Panganiban, J.:

Keeping the money in his possession without his client's knowledge only
provided Atty. Uy the tempting opportunity to appropriate for himself the
money belonging to his client. This situation should, at all times, be
avoided by members of the bar. Like judges, lawyers must not only be
clean; they must also appear clean. This way, the people's faith in the
justice system would remain undisturbed.

iv. Borrowing or Lending

Lourdes R. Busios v. Atty. Francis Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349, December 22, 1997

Per Curiam:

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.
 His belated payment of the amount he illegally used and fraudulently obtained do
not relieve him from any liability if only to impress upon him that the relation
between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very
delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring high degree of fidelity and
good faith.

D. Fidelity to Clients Cause

When a lawyer takes a clients cause; he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment
of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on
him.

Veronica S. Santiago et al. v. Atty. Amador R. Fojas, A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995

Davide, Jr., J.:

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment,
subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees
to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity,
care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client,
save by the rules of law, legally applied.

E. Competence and Diligence

A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client
with competence and diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such
relationship.

i. Adequate Protection

Emilia R. Hernandez v. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012
Sereno, J.:

Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter
without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not
 complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not
excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he
felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he
was approached by complainants husband only two days before the expiration of
the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent should have filed a motion
for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he
could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

ii. Negligence

Islas v. Platon and Ona, 47 Phil. 162

It is the duty of a practising lawyer to so arrange matters that official or judicial

communications sent by mail will reach him promptly. Failing to do so, he and his
clients must suffer the consequences of his negligence.

Dolores C. Belleza v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009

Per Curiam:

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainants son and
receiving his attorneys fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as
effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent
abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of respondents continued
inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorneys
Office. Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainants son
was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him
of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount
entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client,
respondent unduly impeded the latters constitutional right to bail.

iii. Collaborating Counsel

A collaborating counsel is one who is subsequently engaged to assist a lawyer

already handling a particular case for a client. (Legal Ethics,Pineda, 2009)

Elizabeth Sublay v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130104, January 31, 2000

Bellosillo, J.:

Although working merely as a collaborating counsel who entered his appearance

for petitioner as early as May 1996, i.e., more or less six (6) months before the
termination of the proceedings a quo, Atty. Alikpala had the bounden duty to
monitor the progress of the case. A lawyer has the responsibility of monitoring
and keeping track of the period of time left to file an appeal. He cannot rely on the
 courts to appraise him of the developments in his case and warn him against any
possible procedural blunder. Knowing that the lead counsel was no longer
participating actively in the trial of the case several months before its resolution,
Atty. Alikpala who alone was left to defend petitioner should have put himself on
guard and thus anticipated the release of the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner's
lead counsel might have been negligent but she was never really deprived of
proper representation.

iv. Duty to apprise client.

Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia v. Atty. Rolando S. Basa, A.C. No. 5039,
November 25, 2005

Panganiban, J.:

Rule 18.04 states that a "lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information." Accordingly, spouses had the right to be updated on the
developments and status of the case for which they had engaged the services of
Atty. Bala. But he apparently denied them that right.

Having become aware of the wrong remedy he had erroneously taken, he

purposely evaded his clients, refused to update them on the appeal, and misled
them as to his whereabouts. Moreover, he uttered invectives at them when they
visited him for an update on the case.

F. Representation with zeal within legal bounds

In the discharge of his duty of entire devotion to the clients cause, a lawyer should present
every remedy or defense authorized by law in support of his clients cause regardless of his
personal views.

i. Use of fair and honest means

Fernando Martin O. Pena v. Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298, June 25, 2007

Tinga, J.:

A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case
or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to
compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyers
client.

ii. Clients Fraud

 The lawyers duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent
claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that
while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their clients
cause or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of
justice. (CPR Annotated, PhilJA)

Surigao Mineral Reservation Board et al v. Hon. Gaudencio Cloribel et al, G.R.

No. L-27072, January 9, 1970

Sanchez, J.:

A lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his client from doing
those things which he himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to the
conduct toward the court, judicial officer, witness and suitor and if the client
persists in such wrong doing, the lawyer should terminate their relation.

iii. Procedure in handling the case

Rizalino Fernandez v. Atty. Reynaldo Novero Jr., A.C. No. 5394. December 2,
2002

Mendoza, J.:

Counsel's failure to file formal offer of exhibits constitutes inexcusable

negligence as it led to the dismissal of the case. To compound his inefficiency,
counsel filed a motion for reconsideration outside the reglementary period. His
attempts to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on his client are apparent.
He refers to the alleged obnoxious attitude of his client in trying to manipulate
the manner in which he was handling the case as the main reason for his failure
to formally offer his exhibits. But he should bear in mind that while a lawyer
owes utmost zeal and devotion to the interest of his client, he also has the
responsibility of employing only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and he should not allow the latter to dictate the
procedure in handling the case.

G. Attorneys Fees

Entitlement to lawyers fees is presumed. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated, rendition of

professional services by a lawyer is for a fee or compensation and is not gratuitous.

i. Acceptance fees

Acceptance fees is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid
for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation. (Legal and Judicial Ethics,
Funa 2009)
 The fact of employment as lawyer by the client constitutes the legal basis of the
lawyers rights to demand payment for his services. No formal contract is
necessary to effectuate employment. (Legal Ethics, Pineda 2009)

ii. Contingency fee arrangements

Contingent fee where the lawyer is paid for his services depending on the success
of the case. This applies usually in civil suits for money or property where the
lawyers fee is taken from the award granted by the court.

Evangelina Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385, February 13, 2009

Nachura, J.:

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the
court in order that clients may be protected from unjust charges. The amount of
contingent fees agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that
counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A
much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that
the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails.

iii. Attorneys lien

A retaining lien is the right of an attorney to retain the funds, documents and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain
the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof.

Francisco Rayos v. Atty. Ponciano G. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February 12,
2007

Chico-Nazario, J.:

A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself
by the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorneys fees.

iv. Fees and Controversies with clients (Quantum Meruit)

Suits to collect fees should be avoided and only when the circumstances
imperatively require should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to enforce payment of fees.
This is but a logical consequence of the legal profession not primarily being for
economic compensation. (Legal Ethics, Agpalo, 1997)
 R. Marino Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 June 30, 1980

Makasiar J.:

An attorney-client relationship can be created by implied agreement, as when

the attorney actually rendered legal services for a person who is a close friend.
The obligation of such a person to pay attorneys fees is based on the law of
contracts concept of facio ut des (no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the
expense of others.

Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat v. NPC, G.R. No. 167415, February 26, 2010

Del Castillo, J.:

A client may enter into a compromise agreement without the intervention of the
lawyer, but the terms of the agreement should not deprive the counsel of his
compensation for the professional services he had rendered. If so, the
compromise shall be subjected to said fees. If the client and the adverse party who
assented to the compromise are found to have intentionally deprived the lawyer
of his fees, the terms of the compromise, insofar as they prejudice the lawyer, will
be set aside, making both parties accountable to pay the lawyers fees. But in all
cases, it is the client who is bound to pay his lawyer for his legal representation.

Quantum meruit means as much as he has deserves, and is used as the basis
for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract, but
recoverable by him from his client.

Raul Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995

Romero, J.:

Generally, the amount of attorneys fees due is that stipulated in the retainer
agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of lawyers compensation
unless the stipulated amount in the written contract is found by the court to
be unconscionable or unreasonable (Sec. 24, Rule 138, RRC). In the absence
thereof, the amount of attorneys fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit.

v. Concepts of Attorneys fees

a. Ordinary attorney's fee The reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his

client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. (Legal Ethics, Pineda,
2009)
b. Extraordinary attorney's fee An indemnity for damages ordered by the court
to be paid by the losing party in litigation. Such award belongs to the client but
parties may stipulate that whatever may be awarded by the court as attorneys
fees will go directly to the lawyer.

Vinson B. Pineda v. Atty. Clodualdo C. De Jesus et al, G.R. No. 155224, Aug. 23,
2006

Corono, J.:

Clearly, what they were demanding was additional payment for legal services
rendered in the same case. Demanding P50 million on top of the generous sums
and perks already given to them was an act of unconscionable greed. They could
not charge Pineda a fee based on percentage, absent an express agreement to
that effect. The payments to them in cash, checks, free products and services from
Pinedas business more than sufficed for the work they did. The full payment for
settlement should have discharged Vinson's obligation to them.

As lawyers, they should be reminded that they are members of an honorable

profession, the primary vision of which is justice. It is the lawyers despicable
behavior in the case at bar which gives lawyering a bad name in the minds of
some people. The vernacular has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of
law is a decent profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation should
be but a mere incident.

Jayne Y. Yu v. Renato Lazaro Bondal, A.C. No. 5534, January 17, 2005

Carpio Morales, J.:

From the records of the case, it was found that four of the cases referred by Rose
were filed but were dismissed or terminated for causes not attributable to Atty.
Jack; and that there was no probable cause to maintain the suit. No fault or
negligence can be attributed to the Atty. Jack. Rose still owes payment of
acceptance fee because she only paid 51, 716.54

An acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement

which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the
litigation.

Dissatisfaction from the outcome of the cases would not render void the retainer
agreement for Atty. Jack appears to have represented the interest of Rose.
 Concept Placement Resources Inc. v. Ricahrd Funk, G.R. No. 137680, February 6,
2004

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:

The expiration of the retainer contract between the parties during the pendency
of the labor case does not extinguish the respondents right for attorneys fees.
The Court found that while the petitioner and the respondent did not execute a
written agreement on the fees in the labor case aside from the Retainer
Agreement, the petitioner did categorically and unequivocally admit in its
Compulsory Counterclaim that it has engaged the services of the respondent as
its counsel for a fee of P60, 000, etc.

Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120592.

March 14, 1997

Regalado, J.:

An attorneys fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by

the losing party to the prevailing party in a litigation. The basis of this is any of the
cases authorized by law and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client unless
they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof.

H. Preservation of clients confidences

The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the
litigation nor is affected by the party ceasing to employ the attorney and employ another or any
other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.

i. Prohibited disclosures and use

Bun Siong Yao v. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023, Mar. 30, 2006

Ynares-Santiago, J.:

The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose

communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the
latter consents. Atty. Aurelio took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get
back at Yao. In doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained
from his dealings with Yao and Yao's companies for his own end.

Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of

exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any person most
 especially against a client or former client.

ii. Disclosure, when allowed

The privilege character of the communication ceases only when waived by the
client himself or after his death, by his heir or legal representative. (Legal and
Judicial Ethics, Lapena, Jr. 2009)

Blandina Hilado v. Jose David, G.R. No. L-961, Sept. 21, 1949

Tuason, J.:

Atty. Henry violated Canon No. 21 of the CPR by sharing information obtained
from his client Niko with Atty. Canonigo. Canon No. 20 provides that a lawyer
shall preserve the confidences or secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relationship is terminated. The fact that Atty. Canonigo is a friend from whom he
intended to secure legal opinion on Nikos problem, does not justify such
disclosure. He cannot obtain a collaborating counsel without the consent of the
client (Rule 18.01, CPR).

On the other hand, Atty. Henry did not violate Canon 21 in sharing information
with his partner Atty. Meyer. Rule 21.04 of the CPR specifically provides that a
lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates
thereof unless prohibited by the client. Atty. Henry was not prohibited from
disclosing the affairs of Niko with the members of his law firm. The employment
of a member of a firm is generally considered as employment of the firm itself.

I. Withdrawal of services

The lawyer should have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the court
relieving him of the duties of counsel.

. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. v. De Dios Transportation Co., Inc. and
De Dios Marikina Transit Corp., G.R. No. 147010, July 18, 2003

. Callejo, SR., J.:

Notice of withdrawal without conformity of client is a mere scrap of paper. The

lawyer remains bound to the case of the client.

Hot Potato Doctrine

It refers to the prohibition from dropping smaller clients (like hot potatoes) in
order to pick up more lucrative clients.
 Felicisimo Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. 4215, May 21, 2001

Kapunan, J.:

Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to
pay the fees for the services, withdrawal is unjustified if client did not deliberately
fail to pay.

Felizardo Obando v. Eduardo Figueras, G.R. No. 134854, January 18, 2000

Panganiban J.:

At the discretion of the court, a lawyer who has been dismissed by a client is
allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the clients rights.

C. Suspension, disbarment and discipline of lawyers (Rule 139-B, ROC)

1. Nature and characteristics of disciplinary actions against lawyers

a. Sui Generis

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAWYERS ARE SUI GENERIS:

neither purely civil nor purely criminal. It is not and does not involve a
trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court in
the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is
no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff
nor a prosecutor. x x x Public interest is its primary objective, and the real
question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit
person to be allowed the privileges as such. (In Re: Almacen, supra)

Elpidio Tiong v. Atty. George Florendo, A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011

Perlas-Bernabe, J.:

It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis not

meant to grant relief to a complainant in a civil case but is intended to
cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in
order to protect the public and the courts.

b. Prescription

Nesa Isenhardt v. Atty. Leonardo Real, A.C. No. 8254, February 15, 2012

Perez, J.:
 The two-year prescriptive period for initiating a suspension or disbarment
proceeding against a lawyer should be construed to mean two years from
date of discovery of the professional misconduct.

2. Grounds

Tan Tek Beng v. Timoteo David, A.C. No. 1261, December 29, 1983

Aquino, J.:

Legal Malpractice - consists of failure of an attorney to use such skill, prudence,

and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and
exercise in the performance of tasks which they undertake, and when such failure
proximately causes damage, it gives rise to an action in tort.

Tomas Yumol v. Atty. Roberto Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No. 6585, April 21, 2005

Chico-Nazario, J.;

Gross Misconduct - any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct on

the part of the person concerned in the administration of justice which is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of a cause, a
conduct that is generally motivated by a predetermined, obstinate, or intentional
purpose.

Flora Quingwa v. Armando Puno, A.C. No. 389, February 28, 1967

Regala, J.:

The statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to

be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a
lawyer. The inherent power of the court over its officers cannot be restricted.

Domingo Marcelo v. Atty. Adriano Javier, A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992

Regalado, J.:

A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or

private capacity. Any interested person or the court motu propio may initiate
disciplinary proceedings.

Vicente Lim v. Atty. Francisco Antonio, A.C. No. 848, September 30, 1971

Dizon, J.:

The fact that he lacked any of the qualifications for membership in the bar as
the time he took his oath is a ground for his disbarment.
 If he commits misconduct outside Philippine jurisdiction, which is also a ground
for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred
in this country. (Legal and Judicial Ethics, Agpalo, 1997)

Mario Amaya v. Atty. Delano Tecson, A.C. No. 5996, February 07, 2005

Callejo Sr., Jr.:

Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as
reprimand, suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired.

Siao Aba v. Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011

Carpio, J.:

The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings

against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The evidence required in the
suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the
evidence of the parties is equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a
decision in favor of the defendant.

Catherine Vitug v. Atty. Diosdado Rongcal, A.C. No. 6313, September 7, 2006

Tinga, J.:

Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a

criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.

In re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr., Bar Matter No. 810, January 27, 1998

Francisco, J.:

The Lawyers Oath is a solemn affirmation of the lawyers lifetime commitment

to be a loyal citizen, law-abiding person, a defender of truth and justice, an
advocate of the rule of law, an exemplar of loyalty a fidelity to the courts and to
clients and a model to emulate both in his professional and private life.

3. Proceedings

Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, January 28, 1998

Tinga, J.:

A disbarment proceeding may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of

the complainant. However, if the complainant refuses to testify and the charges
cannot then be substantiated, the court will have no alternative but to dismiss the
case.

Daniel Aquino v. Atty. Maria Lourdes Villamar-Mangaoang,, AC. No. 4934.

March 17, 2004

Ynares-Santiago, J.:

The burden of proof is upon the complainant and the SC will exercise its
disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by the required
quantum of proof which is clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.

Roman Villalon, Jr., v. IAC, G.R. No. L-73751, Sept. 24, 1986

Melencio-Herrera, J.:

The confidentiality of the proceedings is a privilege which may be waived by the

lawyer in whom and for the protection of whose personal and professional
reputation it is vested, as by presenting the testimony in a disbarment case or
using it as impeaching evidence in a civil suit.

Angel Bautista v. Atty. Ramon Gonzales, A.M. No. 1626, February 12,1990

Per Curiam:

Reference of complaints to the IBP is not an exclusive procedure under Rule 139-
B, RRC. The Court may conduct disciplinary proceedings without the intervention
of the IBP by referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any
officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court. In such case, the report or
recommendation of the investigating official shall be reviewed directly by the
Supreme Court.

Benjamin Uy v. Hon. Renato Mercado, A.M. No. R-368-MTJ, September 30, 1987

Per Curiam:

APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR. This principle applies to

both judges and lawyers. Judges had been dismissed form the service without
the need of a formal investigation because based on the records, the gross
misconduct or inefficacy of the judges clearly appears.

Prudential Bank v. Atty. Benjamin Grecia, A.M. No. 2756 June 5, 1986

Per Curiam:
 The same principle applies to lawyers... when it appears that the lawyer conducted
himself in a manner which exhibits his blatant disrespect to the court, or his want
of good moral character... may be disbarred or suspended without need of a trial-
type proceeding.

4. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers practicing Abroad

The rule is that a Philippine lawyer may practice law only in the country. He may,
however, be admitted to the bar in a foreign country, where he practices law in
both countries. If he commits a misconduct outside Philippine jurisdiction, which
is also a ground for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended
or disbarred in this country.