CANON 15
Bamba for corporate and
63 - PNB vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO
Facts:
- Complaint: In 1991, PNB charged Cedo, former VP of the Asses
Mgt Group of PNB with violation of CANON 6, RULE 6.03
- “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which
he had intervened while in said service.”
- He intervened by appearing as counsel for those who had
transactions with PNB in which he had intervened during his
employment.
- Participated in the sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong Siy
for 200k, noted the gate passes issued by his subordinate
(Emmanuel Elefan) authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets.
- When a civil action arose from this transaction, he appeared as
counsel (he already left employment).
- Also appeared as council for Elefan when PNB filed an administrative
case against him—he was later disqualified by the Civil Service
Commission.
- When Cedo was still Asst. Vice President of the Asset Mgt Group, he
intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses
Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda by writing demand letters to the
couple. When a civil action arose, the couple were represented by
the law firm CEDO, FERRER, MAYNIGO & ASSOCIATES – respondent
is a senior partner.
- Atty. Cedo Comment: Admitted he appeared as council for Mrs
Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the
RTC decision and not the litigation of the case.
- Alleged he never appeared as counsel for the ALMEDA spouses. The
case is handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer. There was no general
partnership with Atty. Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named. The
law firm was maintained by lawyers who are not partners but
maintain one clerical and supporting staff. Each one handles their
own independent cases and separately receives revenues.
- IBP Report and Recommendation: Respondent was previously
fined by this Court (1k) in Ong Siy’s case for forum shopping where
he appeared through the law firm.
- Charges are fully substantiated.
- Atty. Perdro Singson (PNB’s counsel) attested that he attended the
Almeda case with his partner Atty. Ferrer. He was practically
dictating what to say and argue before the court. Respondent
impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer when it was
made of record that respondent was working in the same office as
Ferrer.
- If the alleged firm set-up is true, it is a violation of the CPR RULE
15.02 since the client’s secrets and confidential records and
information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff
members.
- There was deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Cedo to devise ways
and means to attract as clients former borrowers of PNB since he
was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of PNB (very
convincing for the clients to seek his service).
- Recommended suspension for 3 years.
- RULING: Suspension for 3 years for violation of Canon 6 and Canon
15.02
“It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by
express conflicting consent of all concerned givn after a full
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interest when, in behalf of one client, it is
his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires
him to oppose”
64 – QUIAMBAO VS. BAMBA
Facts:
- Administrative case for disbarment, Felicitas Quiambao charges
Atty. Bamba with violation of the CPR for representing conflicting
interests when the latter filed a case against her while he was
representing her in another case, and for committing other acts
disloyalty and double-dealing (WOW NAMAN ATTY)
- Quiambao was the president and managing director of Allied
Investigation Bureau (AIB), a family-owned corp involved in
providing security and investigation services.
- She procured the legal services of Atty.
personal affairs.
- Acted as her counsel of record in an ejectment case against spouses
SANTIAGO and TORROBA before the MTC of Paranaque. She paid
the fees.
- Quiambao resigned as president. Respondent filed on behalf of AIB
a complaint for replevin and damages against her before the MeTC
of Quezon for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB
assigned to her as a service vehicle. He did this without withdrawing
as counsel of record in the ejectment case (still pending).
- On disloyalty and double-dealing: Respondent proposed to her that
she organize her own security agency and that he would assist,
causing her to resign as president. He indeed assisted her in the
formation of another agency (Quiambao Risk Mgt Specialists Inc)
with the respondent as “silent partner” represented by his associate
Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez. He also planned to “pirate” more
important clients of AIB.
- While legal counsel for AIB and silent partner of QRMSI, he
convinced complainant’s brother to form another agency SAN
ESTEBAN SECURITY SERVICES (SESSI) where he was the
incorporator, director, and president. The brother and respondent
then illegally diverted the funds of AIB to SESSI and planned to
close AIB.
-
- Respondent’s Comment: admits that he represented complainant
in the mentioned ejectment case and later represented AIB in the
replevin case against her.
- Denies he was the personal lawyer of Quiambao. He was made to
believe it was part of his function in AIB to represent personal cases
of its officers.
- The ejectment and replevin cases involved different issues and
parties—privilege information would have no use in the other. It was
complainant who insisted that he stay as her counsel despite the
perceived differences among her, her brother, and AIB over the
motor vehicle subject of the replevin case.
- Denies he agreed to be a silent partner through his nominee—his
former law partner. He declined her offer, thus Hernandez was
suggested. 375 stocks listed to Hernandez’s name.
- Denies he convinced her brother to form another agency and denies
the fund issue. SESSI was supposed to complement AIB which was
in danger of collapse.
- IBP Report and Recommendation: found respondent guilty of
representing conflicting interests based on the facts:
- 1. He was still complainant’s counsel of record in the ejectment case
when he filed as legal counsel in the replevin case.
- 2. He was still legal counsel of AIB when he advised on the
incorporation of another agency and recommended his former law
partner, and when he recommended the formation of SESSI where
he became incorporator, stockholder, president.
- THUS, recommended he be suspended for ONE YEAR.
- Board of Governors adopted and approved. Reduced the penalty to
a STERN REPRIMAND.
- RULING:
- Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 provides: “A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts”
- Founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In the course
of a lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer learns all the weak and
strong facts. The nature is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
- Tests (from jurisprudence) to check whether a lawyer’s conduct lies
within this proscription:
 Duty-bound test – if a lawyer’s argument for one client has to
be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for another client.
 Acceptance of a new relation test – would it prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client? - GUILTY
 Confidential information test – would the lawyer be called upon
in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection?
- SC did not sustain his theory that the ejectment case and replevin
case are unrelated fraught with different issues.
- His representation constitutes conflict of interest, invites suspicion of
double-dealing.
- His claim that he was duty-bound to handle even personal cases
assigned to him does not make the prohibition inoperative. Lawyers
are not obliged to act as an adviser or advocate for every person.
They have the right to decline subject to Canon 14 (render service
to the needy).
- Although he vehemently refused to join QRMSI, he allowed himself
to be a major part in SESSI. (his justification was that he served
 different functions—in AIB he was an inhouse legal counsel while in
SESSI he serves the operation aspects of the business).
- He is guilty of the second test of conflict of interest. The close
relationship of the majority stockholders does not negate the conflict
of interest
- GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT and RA No. 5487 prohibiting a
person from organizing or having an interest in more than one
security agency.
- By organizing SESSI, he violated RULE 1.02 of CANON 1, which
mandates lawyers to promote respect for the law and refrain from
acts aimed at defiance of the law.
- Guilty of Rules 15.03, Rule 1.02 – SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR.
65 – DR. TERESITA LEE VS. ATTY. AMADOR SIMANDO
Facts:
- Petition for disbarment for violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics of
Lawyers
- Atty. Simando was retained counsel of Lee with a monthly retainer
of 3k.
- Simando asked if Lee could help a certain Felicito Mejorado for his
needed funds. Lee refused as he did not know the person and she
was not in the business of lending money. Simando persisted and
assured that Mejorado will pay his obligation and will issue
postdated checks and sign promissory notes. Even offered to be co-
maker. “Ipapahamak ba kita, klieyente kita” “SIgurado ito, kung
gusto mo, gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din ako”.
- Due to the persistence and daily calls, Lee gave in. Simando acted
as co-maker in various cash loans. (Total: 1.4M)
- When it became due, despite repeated demands, Mejorado failed to
pay. Since Simando was still her lawyer, she instructed him to
initiate legal action. Simando said he can ask him to pay without
legal action but failed to do so. When Lee demanded from him being
the co-maker, he said, “Edi kasuhan din ninyo ako!”
- Lee was forced to terminate her contract with Atty. Simando.
- New lawyer Atty. Morandarte sent a demand letter to Simando in his
capacity as co-maker. Simando denied liability and claimed that
novation had occurred because Lee allegedly gave additional loans
to Mejorado without his knowledge.
- Simando’s ANSWER: claimed that Lee is engaged in lending
money at high interest rates from borrowers and was the one who
initiated the financial transaction.
- When she heard that Mejorado has a pending claim for informer’s
award with the Bureau of Customs, she offered to lend money.
Parties agreed that Mejorado will pay double the amount and shall
be due upon receipt of the claim/reward.
- Lee gave only 700k as investment but he Simando signed receipts
showing 1.4M.
- Novation/additional investments: 1 pickup worth 500k and 50 sacks
of old clothing. (without Simando’s knowledge)
- He denied refusing to take legal action since Lee never instructed
him to file legal action and because he knew the payment was only
due upon receipt of the reward.
- Did not violate attorney-client relationship since Dr. Lee voluntarily
made the financial investment and he merely made introductions.
- Dr. Lee’s REPLY: It was not a mere investment but a loan. She
lent the money with the respondent as co-maker. To prove, she
submitted written loan agreements which stated that the money
received was a loan with due dates.
- She did not know Mejorado. It was only when respondent vouched
for him that she agreed.
- She was collecting only the loan of 1.4M and nothing more. The
claim that the obligation was extinguished through novation holds
no water.
- Atty. Simando divulged confidential informations he acquired and
used it against her in the present case—unethical conduct/ lawyer-
client confidentiality rule.
- IBP-CBD: Both parties failed to appear in the mandatory
conference twice. IBP required them to submit position papers
instead.
- Atty. Simando found guilty of violating CPR. Reco suspension for 6
months.
- BOG adopted report.
- Respondent moved for reconsideration—granted for lack of sufficient
evidence to warrant suspension. The case against him dismissed.
SUPREME COURT: Reversed the ruling.
- Cited the three tests of conflicting interest.
- Substantial evidence to support the violation of the parameters:
1. Undisputed client-lawyer relationship as evidenced by the
retainer fees.
2. Atty. Simando admitted that Mejorando is another client of him
albeit in a case claiming rewards.
3. He admitted he was the one who introduced for the purpose of
entering into a financial transaction while knowing that the two’s
interests could possibly conflict.
4. Despite the conflicting interests, he consented in the agreement
and even signed as co-maker.
5. Demonstrated further when he failed to act on the failure to pay
the obligation despite Lee’s instruction, when he denied liability
despite being a co-maker, rebutted complainant’s allegations and
even divulged informations he acquired.
- His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though
unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least,
invites suspicion of double-dealing.
- Respondent’s argument that the money received was an investment
and not a loan is difficult to accept, considering that he signed as
co-maker. (He should know the nature of suretyship and its
consequences)
- The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s private activity or
in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. In
the process of determining whether there is a conflict of interest, an
important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict.
- Respondent offered several excuses in order to avoid payment of his
liability. First, in his Answer to complainant's demand letter, he
claimed there was novation which extinguished his liability;
Secondly, he claimed that the amount received by Mejorado for
which he signed as co-maker was merely an investment and not a
loan. Finally, he alleged that it was agreed that the investment with
profits will be paid only after Mejorado receives the payment for his
claim for reward which complainant violated when she presented the
checks for payment prematurely. These actuations of Atty. Simando
do not speak well of his reputation as a lawyer.
- Guilty of violating Rule 15.03 (conflicting interests) and Rule
21.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his last-ditch
effort to impeach the credibility of complainant, he divulged
informations.
- PENALTY: six (6) months from the practice of law, with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
warrant a more severe penalty.
66 – SANTOS VS. BELTRAN
Facts:
- Administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Rogelio R. Santos,
Sr. against Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran on the grounds of gross
misconduct and malpractice.
- In essence, complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent for
allegedly notarizing a Deed of Donation without the affiants
personally appearing before him
- After the death of Rogelio’s father, his mother donated two
residential lots in favor of his 9 siblings, excluding him. The deed
was notarized by respondent lawyer.
- Benita Rodriguez died. Complainant and his brother, Alberto, were
appointed administrators in the intestate proceeding for the
settlement of the spouses’ estate
- Complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD), alleging that when respondent notarized the subject Deed of
Donation, his siblings did not personally appear before him. Signed
not in the law office of the respondent but in their houses. Late
compliance of Community Tax Certificates.
- Moreover, he argued that his siblings were American citizens who
were thus disqualified from owning real properties in the Philippines.
- Complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as private
prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 73560 for falsification of public
document, which he filed against Renato and Benito, without being
engaged by him or authorized by the court; that respondent
represented conflicting interest when he entered his appearance
as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client,
Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford, was the plaintiff; and that respondent,
through insidious machination acquired the titles of two residential
lots at Villa Benita Subdivision owned by Spouses Filomeno and
Benita Santos.
- RESPONDENT: He confirmed the due execution of the Deed of
Donation and submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed by
Mely Lachica, the secretary of his law office. In her Affidavit, Lachica
categorically stated that she caused all parties to sign the Deed.
She, nevertheless admitted that she forgot to change the date of
the execution of the Deed from August 18, 1994 to September 9,
1994 when all the parties had secured their CTCs.
- Complainant’s siblings may still acquire properties in the Philippines
through hereditary succession even though they were already
American citizens.
- Respondent also declared that complainant humiliated his mother
when, in his presence and that of his siblings, complainant uttered
the unsavory Tagalog words, "Putang ina mo matanda ka,
walanghiya ka, walang pinagkatandaan dapat mamatay ka na.
- Respondent denied having represented complainant in Criminal
Case. He explained that complainant filed a complaint for
falsification of public document against him and his nine siblings
relying on the affidavit executed by Benito and Renato that they
signed the Deed of Donation in their houses at Villa Benita and not
at respondent’s office.
- Appeared at one of the hearings of the said case to defend himself
from the accusation of Benito and Renato. Respondent emphasized
that he did not ask for any compensation from complainant for that
isolated appearance.
- Respondent denied having acquired any property under litigation.
He bought two parcels of land not owned by the Santoses but from
a corporation.
- Alleged representation in ejectment cases had long been executed,
thus the attorney-client relationship between him and Erlinda
Santos-Crawford was also terminated.
- IBP-CBD: respondent guilty of violating his notarial commission and
recommended that his commission be suspended for a period of one
year.
- BOG: Modified, Respondent’s Commission as Notary Public is hereby
SUSPENDED, with DISQUALIFICATION from being appointed as
Notary Public for two (2) years from notice of final decision.
- SUPREME COURT: The power to disbar must be exercised with
great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.
- The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight
conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the
presumption of regularity. In the instant case, complainant failed to
controvert the said presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and the date when
complainant’s siblings obtained their CTCs had been substantially
explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law office,
Mely Lachica.
- The allegation that respondent represented complainant in Criminal
Case No. 73569 without being retained or authorized by the court is
also untenable. Respondent adequately explained his isolated
appearance at one of the hearings. In entering his appearance as
private prosecutor, he did not intend to represent complainant but
only to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato
that he notarized the Deed of Donation in their absence.
- Records show that respondent acquired the property from Fabern’s
Inc., and not from Spouses Filemon and Benita Santos. Respondent
may not be held accountable based on mere allegation. Surmises,
suspicion and conjectures are not bases of culpability.
- complainant indicted respondent for representing conflicting interest
in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
- “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
- In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by
Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of Erlinda Santos-Crawford against
complainant and Renato Santos. Respondent, however appeared as
counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in
Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by complainant as attorney-
in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No. 14823, although
litigated by complainant, was actually brought in behalf of and to
protect the interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Respondent’s act of
representing the parties against whom his other client, Erlinda
Santos-Crawford, filed suit constituted conflict of interest.
- dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be true,
- Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective
immediately
67 – DAGING VS. DAVIS
Facts:
- This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an
Affidavit Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet
Chapter, against Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis (respondent).
- Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville
Country Music Lounge. She leased from Benjie Pinlac
(Pinlac) a building spaGe located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio
City where she operated the bar.
- Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from
Davis & Sabling Law Office signed by respondent and his
partner Atty. Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling). This
eventually resulted in the signing.
- Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals,
Pinlac terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo
(Balageo) and respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's
music bar, inventoried all the equipment therein, and
informed her that Balageo would take over the operation of
the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent
acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar
under her business name, which they later renamed Amarillo
Music Bar.
- She filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo
before the MTC. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office
was still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained
subsisting and in force. However, respondent appeared as
counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case.
- Respondent’s COMMENT: denied participation in the
takeover or acting as a business partner of Balageo in the
operation of the bar.
- He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who
initiated the proposal and was in fact the one who was able
to convince complainant to accept the law office as her
retainer. Respondent maintained that he never obtained any
knowledge or information regarding the business of
complainant who used to consult only Atty. Sabling.
Respondent admitted though having represented Balageo in
the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of
the Retainer Agreement between complainant and Davis and
Sabling Law Office.
- While the complaint for ejectment was pending, respondent
was informed by Balageo and Pinlac the truth of all matters.
He deemed it prudent to withdraw as counsel for Balageo.
- The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- IBP Report and Recommendation: respondent guilty of
betrayal of his client's trust and for misuse of information
obtained from his client to the disadvantage of the latter and
to the advantage of another person. SUSPENSION OF 1
YEAR
- BOG: Adopted and approved. Reduced to 6 MONTHS (no
proof he actually handled any previous legal matters
involving complainant)
SUPREME COURT: Retainer agreement is undisputed. And
during the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement,
respondent represented and defended Balageo, who was
impleaded as one of the defendants in the ejectment case.
- It is indubitable that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of
- Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.\
- Rule 15.03 -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.
- The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is
absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in
good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting
interests.
- A lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the
party who has engaged the services of his law firm brings
the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and
undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent's
argument that he never took advantage of any information
acquired by his law fim in the course of its professional
is of no moment.
- The Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS: 6 MONTHS
SUSPENSION.

68 – GONZALES VS. CABUCANA
Facts:
- Complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales) praying that
Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for
representing conflicting interests.
- Gonzales was the complainant in a case for sum of money
and damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC) of Santiago City where she was represented by the
law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND
CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana
handling the case and herein respondent as an
associate/partner. She won.
- Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of
execution issued in connection with the judgment which
prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said
sheriff with this Court;
- Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales;
they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an
affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint before this
Court; Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos
criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral
defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation;
- Respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by
Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent should be
disbarred from the practice of law since respondent’s
acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates the
lawyer-client relationship.
- Rule 10.01, Rule 13.01, Rule 15.02, Rule 21.01, Rule
21.02
- Respondent’s ANSWER: He never appeared and
represented complainant in Civil Case No. 1-567 since it was
his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and
represented Gonzales in said case.
- He is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the cases
filed against them but claimed that his appearance is pro
bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as no other
counsel was willing to take their case. Entered his
appearance in good faith and opted to represent the spouses
rather than leave them defenseless despite the ire of a high-
ranking official.
- The civil case filed by Gonzales where respondent’s brother
served as counsel is different and distinct from the criminal
cases filed by complainant against the Gatcheco spouses,
thus, he did not violate any canon on legal ethics.
- Complainant’s REPLY: the civil case handled by
respondent’s brother is closely connected with the cases of
the Gatchecos which the respondent is handling;
- that the claim of respondent that he is handling the cases of
the spouses pro bono is not true since he has his own
agenda in offering his services to the spouses;
- that the allegation that she is filing the cases against the
spouses because she is being used by a powerful person is
not true since she filed the said cases out of her own free
will.
- accusations of respondent against the said judge is an attack
against a brother in the profession which is a violation of the
CPR
- that respondent continues to use the name of De Guzman in
their law firm despite the fact that said partner has already
been appointed as Assistant Prosecutor of Santiago City,
again in violation of the CPR.
- CBP Commissioner: Respondent made a mistake in the
acceptance of the administrative case of Romeo Gatcheco,
however, the Commission (sic) believes that there was no
malice and bad faith in the said acceptance and this can be
shown by the move of the complainant to unilaterally
withdraw the case which she filed against Atty. Marcelino C.
Cabucana, Jr.
- STERN WARNING AND REPRIMAND
- SUPREME COURT: He is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15:
- Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
- It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred from representing
conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.24 Such
prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree.25 Lawyers are
expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice
- GUILTY OF THIS TEST: the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
- Respondent argued that it was his brother who represented
Gonzales; as respondent admitted, it was their law firm
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the
case, the rule against representing conflicting interests
applies.
- The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with
honest intention will also not exculpate him as such claim
does not render the prohibition inoperative.
- It is settled that while there may be instances where lawyers
cannot decline representation they cannot be made to labor
under conflict of interest between a present client and a
prospective one.
- Failed to have observed the requirements laid down by the
rules by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as
soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict.
- Mitigating circumstances: the fact that he is representing
the Gatcheco spouses pro bono and that it was his firm and
not respondent personally, which handled the civil case of
Gonzales; no malice and bad faith in respondent’s
acceptance of the Gatchecos’ cases.
- PENALTY OF 2,000 ONLY.
69 – JOSEPHINE OROLA VS. ATTY JOSEPH RAMOS
Facts:
- Complainants Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, (all surnamed
Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-Belarga (Mary Angelyn), and
Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip (Marjorie) are the children of the
late Trinidad Laserna-Orola (Trinidad), married to Emilio Q.
Orola (Emilio)
- In a settlement of Trinidad’s estate, pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, parties were represented
by counsel with respondent as collaborating counsel for
Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of the late Antonio (Heirs
of Antonio—deceased brother of complainants and son of
Emilio)
- The heirs of Trinidad and heirs of Antonio moved for the
removal of Emilio (father) as administrator.
- Respondent filed an entry of appearance as collaborating
counsel for Emilio (but he was CC for the heirs of Antonio,
remember?)
- Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants
filed the instant disbarment complaint before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), claiming that he violated: (a)
Rule 15.03 of the Code, as he undertook to represent
conflicting interests in the subject case and (b) Section
20(e), Rule 138 of the Rules, as he breached the trust
and confidence reposed upon him by his clients, the Heirs of
Antonio
- Respondent’s Part: refuted the abovementioned charges,
contending that he never appeared as counsel for the Heirs
of Trinidad or for the Heirs of Antonio. He pointed out that
the records of the case readily show that the Heirs of
Trinidad were represented by Atty. Villa, while the Heirs of
Antonio were exclusively represented by Atty. Azarraga
- He averred that he only accommodated Maricar's request to
temporarily appear on her behalf as their counsel of record
could not attend the scheduled hearings and that his
appearances thereat were free of charge; he consulted
Maricar before he undertook to represent Emilio in the same
case.
- He obtained Maricar’s permission for him to withdraw from
the case as no further communications transpired after these
two hearings.
- he had no knowledge of the fact that the late Antonio had
other heirs and, in this vein, asserted that no information
was disclosed to him by Maricar or their counsel of record at
any instance
- he clarified that his representation for Emilio in the subject
case was more of a mediator, rather than a litigator
- Recommendation and Action of the IBP: found guilty of
representing conflicting interests only with respect to Karen
as the records of the case show that he never acted as
counsel for the other complainants.
 - While respondent's withdrawal of appearance was with the
express conformity of Maricar, respondent nonetheless failed
to obtain the consent of Karen, who was already of age and
one of the Heirs of Antonio, as mandated under Rule 15.03
of the Code.
- no violation of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules as
complainants themselves admitted that respondent “did not
acquire confidential information from his former client nor
did he use against the latter any knowledge obtained in the
course of his previous employment.”
- Disbarment is too harsh for a first offense. He be severely
reprimanded for his act with warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
- IBP BOG: Suspension of 6 MONTHS
SUPREME COURT:
- Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating
counsel not only for Maricar as claimed by him, but for all
the Heirs of Antonio. The Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of
Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as administrator for
having committed acts prejudicial to their interests. Hence,
when respondent proceeded to represent Emilio for the
purpose of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the
same case, he clearly worked against the very interest of the
Heirs of Antonio – particularly, Karen – in violation of the
above-stated rule.
- His justification that no confidential information was relayed
to him cannot fully exculpate him for the charges against
him since the rule on conflict of interests.
- That respondent’s previous appearances for and in behalf of
the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly accommodation
cannot equally be given any credence since the aforesaid
rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely
probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith and
with no intention to represent conflicting interests.
- Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement
by Emilio was more of a mediator than a litigator and for the
purpose of forging a settlement among the family members
render the rule inoperative. In fact, even on that assertion,
his conduct is likewise improper since Rule 15.04,32 Canon
15 of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the
written consent of all concerned before he may act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
- SUMMARY OF RULING:
o 1) respondent is a first time offender;
o 2) it is undisputed that respondent merely
accommodated Maricar’s request out of gratis to
temporarily represent her only during the June 16
and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her lawyer’s
unavailability;
o 3) it is likewise undisputed that respondent had
no knowledge that the late Antonio had any other
heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he
actually acquired (albeit shortly after his first
appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio),
hence, it can be said that he acted in good faith;
o 4) Complainants admit that respondent did not
acquire confidential information from the Heirs of
Antonio nor did he use against them any
knowledge obtained in the course of his previous
employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any
manner prejudiced by his subsequent engagement
with Emilio.
- Court concurs with the IBP’s finding that respondent violated
Rule 15.03 of the Code, but reduced the recommended
period of suspension to three (3) MONTHS.
70 – LYDIA CASTRO-JUSTO VS. ATTY. GALING
Facts:
- complaint for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro-Justo against
Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing
- Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Galing in connection with
dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W.
Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the
respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding
payment of the checks. Respondent advised complainant to
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand
letter before filing her complaint.
- complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for
estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
- she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation5 filed by
respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the
criminal cases, and the latter’s daughter Karen Torralba (Ms.
Torralba)
- Complainant submits that by representing conflicting
interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
- Respondent’s COMMENT: denied the allegations against
him. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for
complainant but argued that it was made only in deference
to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a
professional engagement as professed by complainant.
- Denied receiving any professional fee for the services he
rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that
complainant would have to retain the services of another
lawyer.
- He drafted the demand letter only as a personal favor to
complainant who is a close friend.
- he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal
cases. He further contended that complainant Justo and Ms.
Koa are likewise longtime friends, as in fact, they are
"comares"
- his appearance in the joint proceedings should only be
construed as an effort on his part to assume the role of a
moderator or arbiter of the parties; to help the parties
achieve an out of court settlement and possible
reconciliation
- IBP BOG: Found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity
and for the pronounced malignancy of his act.
- SUSPENSION 1 YEAR
- SUPREME COURT: Agreed.
- A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the
close friendship between complainant and respondent. The
relationship was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the
dishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter
respondent further affirmed such relationship.
- The non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate
respondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration
does not exempt lawyers from complying with the
prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests.
- The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is
founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In the
course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of
the facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak
and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship
is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree.
- Failed the three tests determining inconsistent interests
- The take- over of a client’s cause of action by another lawyer
does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the
opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also
constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the
attorney-client relationship.
- As first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is
deemed to be too severe
- SUSPENSION FOR 1 YEAR
CANON 16
71 – UNITY FISHING VS. ATTY. MACALINO
Facts:
- complaint for disbarment filed by Unity Fishing Development
Corporation against Atty. Danilo Macalino for having violated
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
- The Court required Macalino to file a comment. Respondent
filed a third and "last extension of time to file comment but
nothing was ever filed. Case was referred to IBP
- Frabal Fishing and Ice Plant Corporation (hereinafter, Frabal)
was the owner of a parcel of land which was leased to
Wheels Distributors, Inc. (hereinafter, Wheels), an
authorized dealer of cars and motor vehicles of various make
- A dispute arose between Frabal and Wheels regarding the
terms and conditions of the lease contract which led to a
lawsuit.
- Frabal hired the services of respondent Atty. Danilo G.
Macalino as counsel
- Frabal merged and was absorbed by Petitioner corporation
Hence, Petitioner was substituted in lieu of Frabal in the
former’s lawsuit with Wheels
 - As Petitioner’s legal counsel, Respondent advised Petitioner
to severe all contractual relationship with Wheels as a step
towards eventually evicting the latter from the property
- The contract was terminated. Resp advised Pett to return
the guarantee deposit (2 mos rental). A check was prepared.
Resp volunteered to deliver it. He then sent his
representative to get the check from petitioner.
- Macalino told the petitioner he sent the check to Wheels.
- The suit went on for several years. Petitioner changed
counsels, replacing respondent. Finally, it ended in an
amicable settlement.
- Wheels informed that it never received the guarantee
deposit. Petitioner was shookt. Upon review, it was
discovered that the check was deposited with United Savings
Bank (now UCPB). But Wheels never maintained an account
with the said bank.
- Pet wrote to resp to explain why the check in issue never
reached Wheels Distributors; never responded nor
attempted to explain his side to what strongly appears to be
a gross misappropriation of the money for his own personal
use;
- IBP Commissioner: Due process consists in being given
the opportunity to be heard and we believe that in this case
respondent has been given all the opportunity to be heard.
- that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
TWO (2) YEARS and be ordered to account to complainant
the amount of P50,000.00
- IBP BOG: Suspension reduced to 1 YEAR.
- SUPREME COURT: The relationship between a lawyer and a
client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity
and good faith
- CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME
INTO HIS POSSESSION.
- Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
- Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
- 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.
- Respondent’s failure to rebut complainant’s evidence clearly
reveals his failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in
consonance with the lawyer’s oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility
- Respondent’s wanton failure to make an accounting and to
return to his client the amount entrusted to him upon
demand give rise to the presumption that he
misappropriated it, in violation of the trust and confidence
reposed on him.
- considering that he has no prior administrative record, it is
our sentiment that the recommended penalty serves the
purpose
- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year
72 – SPOUSES CONCEPCION VS. DE LA ROSA
Facts:
- administrative case filed by complainants Spouses Henry A.
Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda;
collectively complainants) against respondent Atty. Elmer A.
dela Rosa (respondent), charging him with gross misconduct
for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Complaint: Respondent served as their retained lawyer and
counsel. Handled matters including the prospect of opening
a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. Said
business, however, failed to materialize.
- Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from
their failed business, respondent borrowed P2.5M which he
promised to return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter.
- Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of
paper containing: (a) photocopies of the checks; and (b) an
acknowledgment that he received the originals of the checks
and that he agreed to return the ₱2,500,000.00, plus
monthly interest of five percent (5%), within five (5) days
- He failed to pay. Complainants began demanding payment
but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay
soon.
- After sending a 2nd demand letter (new counsel), respondent
denied the borrowing of money.
- Claimed that a certain Jean Charles Nault (Nault), one of his
other clients, was the real debtor.
- Complainants brought the matter to the Office of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa. Failed to settle.
- Charged respondent with violation of Rule 16.04 of the
CPR. The rule prohibits lawyers from borrowing money from
clients unless the latter’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice
- IBP Report and Recommendation: guilty of violating:
o (a) Rule 16.04 of the CPR which provides that a
lawyer shall not borrow money from his clients
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice;
o (b) Canon 7 which states that a lawyer shall
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the IBP;
and
o (c) Canon 16 which provides that a lawyer shall
hold in trust all monies and properties of his client
that may come into his possession.
- the checks were issued in respondent’s name and that he
personally received and encashed them
- recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be
ordered to return the ₱2,500,000.00 to complainants, with
stipulated interest
- IBP BOG: Reduced the disbarment to INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION plus payment with stipulated interest.
- SUPREME COURT: concurs with the IBP’s findings except as
to its recommended penalty
- Respondent’s theory that Nault is the real debtor hardly
inspires belief. While respondent submitted a document
purporting to be Nault’s acknowledgment of his debt to the
complainants, Nault, in his Answer to Third Party Complaint,
categorically denied knowing the complainants and incurring
the same obligation.
- It would be illogical for them to extend a ₱2,500,000.00 loan
without any collateral or security to a person they do not
even know.
- The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer
from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking
advantage of his influence over his client.
- The client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all
the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.
- Respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is found guilty of
violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three
(3) YEARS
73 – LEMOINE VS. BALON JR.
Facts:
- complainant Daniel Lemoine, a French national, filed a
verified complaint against respondent Atty. Amadeo E.
Balon, Jr., for estafa and misconduct
- Complainant filed a car insurance claim with the Metropolitan
Insurance Company (Metropolitan Insurance), the insurer of
his vehicle which was lost. His friend (Jesus Garcia) arranged
for the engagement of respondent’s services.
- Respondent advised complainant, whom he had not before
met, that for his legal services he was charging "25% of the
actual amount being recovered (525K)—respondent did
not agree with this.
- Before leaving for France, signed an already prepared
undated Special Power of Attorney6 authorizing respondent
and/or Garcia to bring any action against Metropolitan
Insurance for the satisfaction of complainant’s claim.
- Jesus Garcia and Respondent updated Lemoine about the
pending case and the negotiations Metropolitan Insurance
offered to settle it for P350,000.00 representing fifty percent
thereof.
- Respondent advised the acceptance of the settlement offer.
- On complainant’s personal visit to the office of Metropolitan
Insurance, he was informed that his claim had long been
settled; the check was given to respondent A YEAR BEFORE.
- Complainant lost no time in going to the law office of
respondent who was not around, however, but whom he was
able to talk by telephone during which he demanded that he
turn over the proceeds.
- Respondent acknowledged the possession but retained 50%
of the entire amount as attorney’s fee.
- Respondent protested what he branded as the "uncivilized
and unprofessional behavior" complainant "reportedly
demonstrated" at respondent’s office.
o “We would like to make it clear that we cannot
give you the aforesaid amount until and unless our
attorney’s fees will be forthwith agreed and
settled. In the same manner, should you be
barbaric and uncivilized with your approached, we
will not hesitate to make a proper representation
with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
for the authenticity of your visa, Department of
Labor and Employment for your working status,
Bureau of Internal Revenue for your taxation
compliance and the National Bureau of
Investigation [with] which we have a good
network...”
- Despite written demands, respondent refused to turn over
the proceeds of the insurance claim and to acknowledge the
unreasonableness of the attorney’s fees he was demanding.
- RESPONDENT: expressed turn them over once he got paid
fifty percent (50%) thereof, he citing the so called
contingent fee billing method of "no cure, no pay"
adopted by practicing lawyers in the insurance industry
- Respondent highlighted the value of the time and efforts he
extended in pursuing complainant’s claim and the expenses
he incurred in connection therewith. He went on to assert
that his inability to contact complainant whose whereabouts
he did not know prompted him to encash the check and keep
the proceeds thereof in conformity with the Special Power of
Attorney executed in his favor.
- Expenses: respondent declared that he, in connection with
his follow-up of the insurance claim, incurred representation
expenses of P35,000.00, entertainment and other
representation expenses on various occasions of
P10,000.00, and transportation and gasoline expenses and
parking fees of P5,000.00;31 and that his retention of
complainant’s money was justified in light of his
apprehension that complainant, being an alien without a
valid working permit in the Philippines, might leave the
country anytime without settling his professional fees.
-
- IBP Report and Recommendation: found respondent
guilty of misconduct and recommended that he be
DISBARRED and directed to immediately turn over to
complainant the sum of P475,000.00 representing the
amount of the P525,000.00 insurance claim less
respondent’s professional fees of P50,000.00
- IBP BOG: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS with the directive to turn over the amount
SUPREME COURT:
- RULE 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
- RULE 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative
body.
- CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
- RULE 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
- RULE 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
- 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.
- CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence in him.
- RULE 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.
- RULE 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his
client, use information acquired in the course of
employment, nor shall he use the same to his advantage or
that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge
of the circumstances consents thereto.
- By respondent’s failure to promptly account for the funds he
received and held for the benefit of his client, he committed
professional misconduct.
- A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings with
his client not only violates his duty of fidelity, loyalty and
devotion to the client’s cause but also degrades himself and
besmirches the fair name of an honorable profession.
- As for respondent’s claim in his June 2001 Supplement to his
Counter-Affidavit that he had on several occasions from May
1999 to October 1999 already delivered a total of
P233,000.00 out of the insurance proceeds to Garcia in trust
for complainant, this does not persuade, for it is bereft of
any written memorandum thereof. It is difficult to believe
that a lawyer like respondent could have entrusted such
total amount of money to Garcia without documenting it
- Respondent’s threat in his December 7, 1999 letter to
expose complainant to possible sanctions from certain
government agencies with which he bragged to have a "good
network" reflects lack of character, self-respect, and
justness.
- GUILTY of malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in
the practice of his profession as a lawyer and he is
hereby DISBARRED
74 – DE CHAVEZ-BLANCO VS. LUMASAG
Facts:
- complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Nelia P. de
Chavez-Blanco against respondent Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr.,
for deceit, dishonesty and gross misconduct
- (IBP) Commissioner found respondent guilty of the
charges and recommended the penalty of disbarment.
Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors reduced the
penalty to a five (5)-year suspension
- Court remanded the case to the IBP in view of its findings
that no formal hearing/investigation was conducted
- COMPLAINT: Complainant was a resident of the United
States of America together with her husband, Mario Blanco.
She also stated that she owned two (2) adjacent parcels of
land in Quezon City. Respondent was authorized to sell the
lots.
- He reported to have sold one lot only for 320K and deducted
38,130k for taxes and commissions. He remitted the balance
to a certain Belen Johnnes (as per complainant’s
instructions, allegedly)
- Respondent said that the other lot remained unsold due to
the presence of squatters on the property.
- Discovered that in truth, the two (2) lots had been sold on
11 March 1990 to the spouses Celso and Consolacion
Martinez for the price of ₱1,120,000.00, and that new titles
had been issued to the transferees.
- Respondent admitted the sale of the properties and his
receipt of its proceeds, but he never tendered or offered to
tender the same to complainant.
- Complainant also averred that the Special Power of Attorney
dated 16 January 1989, which respondent had used to sell
the lots is a forgery and a falsified document, as the
signature therein were not the real signatures of
complainant and her spouse. In addition, they could not
have acknowledged the document before a notary, as they
were not in the Philippines at the time.
- RESPONDENT: vehemently denied all the accusations of
deceit, dishonesty and gross misconduct
- Countered that Mario Blanco was the true owner of the
properties, which had to be titled in complainant’s name, as
Mario Blanco was a U.S. citizen.
- Alleged that the deed of absolute sale if the two (2) lots had
been executed but, only one lot was initially paid in the
 amount of ₱281,980.00, which he immediately remitted to
Mario Blanco.
- When respondent had finally collected the proceeds of the
second lot more than three (3) years after, he asked Mario
Blanco if the former could use the amount for a real estate
venture whose profit, if successful, he would share with the
latter. Mario Blanco allegedly did not think twice and
consented to the proposal. The venture, however, did not
push through
- Respondent denied the charge of falsification. He claimed
that complainant and her spouse, Mario Blanco, had in fact
signed the Special Power of Attorney, but it was only
notarized later.

- IBP Report and Recommendation: the two lots were sold

by Respondent for ₱560,000.00, not ₱1,120,000.00 as
alleged by Complainant. The basis is the Deed of Absolute
Sale which shows that the two lots composing sold for
₱560,000.00. No documentary basis for the claimed amount
of ₱1,120,000.00 of Complainant. However, Respondent in
his Comment stated that the two lots were sold by him for
₱563,960.00. We shall uphold and apply the amount stated
in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
- There was clear deception on the part of Respondent when
he wrote the letter dated March 20, 1990 "informing" the
Blanco spouses that he had sold only one of the two parcels
of land when he actually sold the two lots for 560K.
- Respondent claims the Deed of Sale is FAKE but this claim
was retracted by him, claiming he was merely confused
(uhm? Lol)
- For the alleged falsification of a Special Power of Attorney
wherein the signatures of the Blanco spouses appear in the
SPA when they were were allegedly in the United States,
their absence in the country has not been satisfactorily
established since mere xerox copies of their passports,
although noted by a notary public, cannot duly establish
their absence
- Respondent was already 72 years old, he be meted out the
penalty of suspension of ONE (1)-YEAR SUSPENSION, not
disbarment as had been prayed for and not 5 year-
suspension as had been earlier resolved by the IBP Board of
Governors.
- IBP BOG APPROVES.

SUPREME COURT: The penalty should be reduced following

the dictum that the appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer
depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based
on the surrounding facts.
- Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
commands all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and
integrity of the legal profession. Specifically, Rule 1.01
thereof provides:
- Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest
and immoral or deceitful conduct.
- Respondent’s contention that he had been authorized to
retain the proceeds of the second is specious, as
complainant and her spouse could not have given the same,
having been left in the dark as regards its sale. Despite
repeated demands, to date, there is no showing that the
outstanding amount has been paid. Thus, respondent’s
deceitful conduct warrants disciplinary sanction and a
directive for the remittance of the remaining proceeds is in
order.
- As to the charge of falsification, the Court agrees with the
IBP that the same appears to be unsubstantiated. Settled is
the rule that, in administrative proceedings, the burden of
proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of
rests on the complainant.
- The Court finds that suspension from the practice of law is
sufficient to discipline respondent. The supreme penalty of
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct
that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and member of the bar.
- SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
SIX (6) MONTHS and ordered to deliver to complainant the
amount of ₱240,000.00 plus legal interest rate of 6% per
annum computed from March 1990