In Re: Arthur Cuevas Jr

285 SCRA 59

Facts:
In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex Talionis Fraternitas in the San Beda
College of Law. Arthur Cuevas Jr was one of the persons charged with murder for the death of the
neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later convicted to the lesser crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Homicide. Thereafter, Cuevas was granted probation and he continued taking up law.
In 1995, he was discharged from probation. In 1996, the Supreme Court allowed Cuevas to take
the bar on the condition that in case he will pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the Supreme
Court first. Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and in 1997, he filed a petition before the Supreme Court
asking the latter to allow him to take the Lawyer’s Oath.

Issue:
Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving aspirants, as well as to
exclude those who have been admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession. Cuevas’
participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is highly reprehensible however, the Supreme Court
is willing to give him a chance considering that Cuevas has received various certifications regarding his
good behavior while on probation.
The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyer’s oath is not mere formality recited for a few
minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. As a Lawyer, Cuevas
shall be expected to abide by the oath strictly and to conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. As a
lawyer he will now be in better position to render legal and other sevices to the more unfortunate
members of society.

Amalgamated Laborers” Association and/or Felisberto M Javier as for himself and as General President,
Atty. Jose Ur. Carbonell, et. Al v CIR and Atty. Leonardo C Fernandez
DR No. L-23467, March 27, 1968

Facts:
Amalgamated laborers’ association won a case of unfair labor practice against Binalbagan Sugar
Centyral Company, Inc (BISCOM). Upon motion of the complainants, CIR sent the Chief Examiner to go to
BISCOM and compute the backwages. Total net backwages amounted to P79, 755.22. Appeals were made
against the decision. In the interim, Atty Leonardo C Fernandez (respondent), in the same case, filed a
“notice of Attorney’s Lien” over the amount to be awarded. He alleged therein that he had been the
attorney of record for the said case since the inception of the preliminary hearings of said case up to the
Supreme Court in Appeal, as chief counsel. He claimed that the laborers have voluntarily agreed to give
him as attorney’s fees on contingent basis 25% of the award. He further averred that this is already a
discounted fee out of the plea of the union’s president to reduce it from 30% for them to also satisfy Atty.
Carbonell. Meanwhile, CIR decided the appeals still in favor of the petitioners and order BISCOm to deposit
the amount representing 25% of P79,755.22 with the cashier of the court to be awarded and granted to
Atty. Fernandez. Atty. Carbonell and ALA appealed from the decision contending that:
1. CIR is bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes over attorney’s fees averring that a
dispute arising from contracts for attorney’s fees is not a labor dispute and is not one among the
 cases ruled to be within CIR’s authority and to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident to a
case over which CIR may validly assume jurisdiction is to disregard the special and limited nature
of said court’s jurisdiction.
2. The award of 25% as attorney’s fees to Atty. Fernandez is excessive, unfair and illegal. This and a
subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.

Issue:
1. Is CIR bereft of jurisdiction over the claim for attorney’s fees?
2. Is 25% of the award a reasonable attorney’s fees?

Held:

1. No. Court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its
jurisdiction. In the absence of such express grant, and in the absence of prohibitive legislation,
it shall also be impliedly granted. In this case, to direct that the present dispute be lodged in
another court as petitioners’ advocate would only result in multiplicity of suits, a situation
abhorred by the rule. Since the court of Industrial Relations obviously had the jurisdiction over
the main cases, it likewise had jurisdiction to consider and decide all matters collateral
thereto, such as claims for attorney’s fees made by the members of the bar who appeared
therein.
2. Yes. An examination of the record of the case will readily show that an award of 25%
attorney’s feed reasonably compensates the whole legal services rendered in the case. This
must however be shared by petitioner atty. Carbonell and respondent Atty. Fernandez. After
all, they are the counsel of good records of the complainants. Though common effort is
presumed, the rightful shares of both must be ascertained. As such, the case has been
remanded to the CIR for the sole determination of shares.

Felicitas S Quiambao v Atty. Nestor A Bamba

Administrative Case for disbarment against Atty. Bamba for the Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.

Facts:
On August 31, 2004, the investigating Commissioner of the IBP found the respondent guilty of
representing conflicting interests based on the following undisputed facts:

1. The respondent was still complainant’s counsel of record in the ejectment case when he filed,
as legal counsel of AIB, the replevin case against Quiambao.
2. The respondent was still the legal counsel of AIB when he advised the complainant5 on the
incorporation of another security agency, QRMSI and recommended his former law partner,
Atty. Hernandez to be its corporate secretary and legal counsel.
3. When he conferred with Leodegario Quiambao, brother of Felicitas to organize another
security agency, SESSI where the respondent became an incorporator, stockholder and
president.
Issue:
 Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing of conflicting interests in
contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.

Held:
Yes. Respondent Atty Nestor A. Bamba is hereby held guilty of Violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon
15 and Rule 1,02 of Canon 1 of the CPR. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year
with a warning that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR provides: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. This prohibition is
founded on principles of Public Policy and good taste. In the course of lawyer-client relationship, the
lawyer yearns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including weak and strong points of the case.
The nature of that relationship is of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not
only to keep inviolate the clients confidence but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double
dealing for only then can litigants be encourage to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
paramount to importance in the administration of justice.

Daniel Lemoine v Atty. Amadeo E Balon Jr

A.C No. 5829, October 28, 2003

A verified complaint against Atty. Amadeo E. Balon Jr for estafa and misconduct before the IBP

Facts:
The complainant, Daniel Lemoine- a French national filed a car insurance claim with the
metropolitan insurance company, the insurer of his vehicle which was lost. As he encourage p[roblems in
pursuing his claim, which was initially rejected, his friend Jesus Jess Garcia arranged for the engagement
for respondent’s services.
By letter on Oct. 21, 1998, respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon Jr advised complainant, that for his
legal services, he was charging 25% of the actual amount being recovered, payable upon successful
recovery. Advance payment of 50,00.00 to be decluded from whatever amount would be collected.
P1,000.00 as appearance and conference fee, 25% recovery fee and legal expenses and other
miscellaneous but related expenses to be reimbursed upon presentation of statement of account. The
letter proposal does not bear conformity with the complainant.
Metropolitan finally offered to settle complainant’s claim on Dec 23, 1998. Ferw days before
settlement, the complainant left for France and he signed a SPA authorizing respondent and Garcia to
bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of his claims. The then claims, was
settled on the date provided by the Metropolitan Insurance but the respondent did not informed Lemoine
and refused to turn over the proceeds of the insurance claim and demands to acknowledge the
unreasonable attorney’s fees.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically the rule
16.01 and 16.02 of Canon 16.

Held:
Yes. Respondent Atty. Amadeo E Balon Jr is found guilty of malpractice, deceit and gross
misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer and is hereby disbarred. The office of the Clerk of
Courts is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys and to inform all courts and the IBP of
the decision.
Respondent is ordered to turn over to complainant, Daniel Lemoine the amount of P525,000.00
within 30 days from notice without prejudice to whatever judicial action he may take to recover his
attorney’s fees and purported expenses incurred in securing the release thereof from Metropolitan
Insurance.
IBP found the respondent guilty of violation of the ff:
1. Rule 1,01
2. Canon 15
3. Canon 16
4. Canon 17
5. Rule 18.04
6. Rule 21.02

Spouses Nicasio and Donelita San Pedro V Atty. Isagani A Mendoza

A complaint for disbarment against Atty. Isagani A Mendoza involving a determination whether
respondent violated his duty to hold in trust all money and properties of the client.

Facts:
Spouses San Pedro engaged in the service of Atty. Isagani A Mendoza to facilitate the transfer of
title to the property in the name of Isabel Marcaida to them. Spouses then gave Atty. Mendoza a check of
P68,250.00 for the payment of the transfer taxes and a check for P13,800.00 as his professional fee.
Respondent lawyer failed to produce the title despite the complainant spouses repeated follow-ups.
Respondent thereafter sent many letters explaining the delay of the transfer but he still failed to produce
such title.
Because of the respondent’s failure to secure the transfer of title of the property in their
names, the complainant spouses acquired a loan from the American Life and General Insurance Company.
When the case reached the IBP, for its reports and recommendations, the Investigating Commissioners
found out that both checks issued to respondent were encashed despite respondent’s failure to facilitate
the release of the title in the name of the complainant.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty for failing to hold in trust the money of his clients.

Held:
Yes. Respondents was found to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically
Canon 16 which states that’ “A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and properties of his clients that may
come into his possession.”.
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 3 months. He is also ordered to return tro
complainants the amount of P68,250.00 with 6% legal interest from the date of finality of judgment until
full payment. Respondent further directed to submit to Court proff of payment within 10 days from
payment.