Brion, Jr. v. Brilliantes, Jr., Adm. Case No.

5305, March 17, 2003 - CAJES

Facts:

Complainant Marciano Brion, Jr., charges the respondent, Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., of
having wilfully violated a lawful order of this Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo
Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. Petitioner now avers that respondent
violated our decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon him from assuming any post in
government service, including any posts in government-owned and controlled corporations,
when he accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA),
from 1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the
Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal
consultancy agreement, this was subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.

Petitioner contends that while both consultancy agreements contained a proviso to the effect
that nothing therein should be construed as establishing an employer-employee relationship
between LWUA and respondent.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Brillantes should be suspended in the procatice of law.

Held:

Yes, The Court held that respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of this Courts
decree in Atienza.

The lawyers primary duty as enunciated in the Attorneys Oath is to uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Respondents
disobedience to this Courts order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality,
or agency of government, including government owned and controlled corporations, cannot be
camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special consultancy contract. By performing duties and
functions of a contractual employee of LWUA, by way of a consultancy, and receiving
compensation and perquisites as such, he displayed acts of open defiance of the Courts
authority, and a deliberate rejection of his oath as an officer of the court. Such defiance not
only erodes respect for the Court but also corrodes public confidence in the rule of law.

What aggravates respondents offense is the fact that respondent is no ordinary lawyer. Having
served in the judiciary for eight (8) years, he is very well aware of the standards of moral fitness
for membership in the legal profession. His propensity to try to get away with an indiscretion
becomes apparent and inexcusable when he entered into a legal consultancy contract with the
LWUA.
Bautista vs. Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625. February 12, 1990] FACTS: In a verified complaint filed by Angel L.
Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation
of lawyerâs oath. Complainant alleged that respondent committed the following acts: 1. Accepting a case
wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado
[hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty
percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation. x x x 4. Inducing complainant, who was his former
client, to enter into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision
of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty
percent (50%) interest thereof as attorneyâs fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said
property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte
and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City; ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed serious
misconduct involving a champertous contract. HELD: YES. The Court finds that the agreement between the
respondent and the Fortunados is contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides
that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. Although a lawyer
may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The
agreement between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to
respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of
proceedings to enforce the clientâs rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially
where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of
some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary
relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.
(kasalanan ni peds bat magulo ang digest na to..heâs singing while nagda-digest ako at si rico ay nagdidiscuss
about braces..)