C.

of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client

relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the
disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to be too severe. As
Castro v. Galing (A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011) recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP,respondent is
FACTS: suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of

respondent Atty. Rodolfo Galing in connection with dishonored checks
SABITSANA JR. VS MUERTEGUIG.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013 703 SCRA
issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid
145
his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa
demanding payment of the checks.Respondent advised complainant to
Facts: Petitioner Clemencio Sabitsana was the counsel of the
wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before
respondent, Juanito Muertegui. Thedispute involved a parcel of land
filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms.
bought by Juanito by virtue of an unnotarized deed of sale fromAlberto
Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office
Garcia. Juanito’s father and his brother Domingo, took actual
of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of
possession of the land.Later on, Garcia sold the same land to the
Motion for Consolidation that was filed for the respondent on behalf of
petitioner this time, through a notarized deed of sale.When the
the opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting
respondents’ father passed away, the heirs applied for the registration
interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.He
and coverageof the lot under Public Land Act or CA No. 141. Petitioner
admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that
opposed the application, claiming hewas the true owner of the lot.
it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by
Respondent filed for quieting of title and preliminary
reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He
injunctionagainst petitioners Clemencio and his wife, Rosario,
denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was
claiming that they bought the land in badfaith and are exercising
allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the possession and ownership of the same, which acts thus constitute
services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that
acloud over the title.
agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated
that the movants in these cases are mother and daughter while
Issue:
complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases
WoN THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ORDERING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY ATTORNEY'S
will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent
FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO THE RESPONDENT
argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and
complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services
Ruling:
he rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint The award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses is proper because of
against Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for
petitioners' bad faith. Petitioner Atty. Sabitsana took advantage of
violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict
confidential information disclosed to him by his client, using the same to
of interest.
defeat him and beat him to the draw, so to speak. He rushed the sale and
registration thereof ahead of his client. oreover, as the Muertegui family's
lawyer, Atty. Sabitsana was under obligation to safeguard his client's
ISSUE: property, and not jeopardize it. Such is his duty as an attorney, and
pursuant to his general agency. taking advantage of the situation and the
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of
information he gathered from his inquiries and investigation, he bought the
Professional Responsibility. very same lot and immediately caused the registration thereof ahead of his
clients, thinking that his purchase and prior registration would prevail. The
HELD:
Court cannot tolerate this mercenary attitude. Instead of protecting his
client's interest, Atty. Sabitsana practically preyed on him.
Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
DARIA O. DAGING, Complainant vs. ATTY. RIZ TINGALON L. DAVIS,
Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for
Respondent.
his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a]
This administrative complaint for disbarment arose from an Affidavit
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
Complaint1 filed by Daria O. Daging (complainant) before the Integrated
of all concerned given after a full disclosure
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Benguet Chapter,2 against Atty. Riz Tingalon L.
of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from Davis (respondent).
representing parties with conflicting interests in a controversy. The
prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music
principles of public policy and good taste. A lawyer-client relationship can
Lounge. She leased it from Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac).
exist notwithstanding the close friendship between complainant and
respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
Meanwhile, complainant received a Retainer Proposal from Davis & Sabling
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By
Law Office signed by respondent and his partner Atty. Amos Saganib
drafting the demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship.
Sabling (Atty. Sabling) and eventually resulted in the signing by the
The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint complainant.
filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to
represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the
Complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals, Pinlac
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with
terminated the lease. Together with Novie Balageo (Balageo) and
the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The
respondent, Pinlac went to complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
equipment therein, and informed her that Balageo would take over the
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the operation of the bar. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent
clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the bar under her
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
business name, which they later renamed Amarillo Music Bar.
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was
Complainant alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and
not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will not
Balageo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio
exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of
City. At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was still her counsel as their
Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action by
Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force. However,
another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the
respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case
opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation
In his Comment, respondent denied participation in the takeover or acting
as a business partner of Balageo in the operation of the bar. He asserted
that Balageo is the sole proprietress of the establishment. 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.
The Investigating Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation
finding 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. He recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice o flaw for a period of one year.
Issue: WON respondent violated the Canon upon appearing as lawyer in
the ejectment case?
Held:
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that respondent
transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It provides:
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.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client." 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. In Quiambao v. Atty.
Bamba, this Court emphasized that 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.
Respondent argues that while complainant is a client of Davis & Sabling Law
office, her case is actually handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling. He was
not privy to any transaction between Atty. Sabling and complainant and has
no knowledge of any information or legal matter complainant entrusted or
confided to his law partner. He thus inveigles that he could not have taken
advantage of information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the Retainer
Agreement. We are not impressed.
In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.,this Court
held that 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 firm in the course of its professional
dealings with the complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no
moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that complainant is a client of his
law firm, respondent should have immediately informed both the
complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law
firm, cannot represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they
would be representing conflicting interests and violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have simply advised
both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another
lawyer.
Liberato Jimenez vs Guillermo Francisco
100 Phil 1025 – Law on Public Officers – Civil Service Eligibility – Temporary
Appointment Does Not Ripen Into Permanent Appointment
In 1947, Liberato Jimenez was appointed as a temporary legal investigator
in the Philippine Veterans Board (PVB). In 1949, he was promoted as the
Chief of the Investigation Section but still in a temporary capacity because
he is not civil service eligible. In 1950, he took a promotional civil service
exam. In July 1951, Jimenez received a letter from PVB Chairman Gen.
Guillermo Francisco advising him that he is being replaced by a civil service
eligible. In September 1951, Jimenez received the results of the civil service
exam he took in 1950; he passed. He then appealed his separation from
service.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jimenez should be reinstated.
HELD: No. In fact, he should have been separated from the service even
before 1951. Under the law, he was supposed to only hold such temporary
appointment for three months while the appointing power is still looking
for a civil service eligible. His extended stay in the service is only upon the
grace of the appointing power. Further, there is no law which provides that
a temporary appointment may ripen to a permanent one. When he met the
civil service eligibility, Jimenez did not become entitled to a permanent
position in the PVD. The power to appoint is in essence discretionary on the
part of the proper authority, in this case the head of the department. The
appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely
according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified for any
competitive position in the Civil Service. Mere certification as a civil service
eligible does not amount to an appointment. The Civil Service Commission
does not insure any appointment; it only certifies an eligible to be
possessed of the qualification as required for a position classified under its
rules
Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J.
Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z. Dabao, Atty. Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz,
Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Atty. Rodney K. Rubica,
and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents.
A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the
respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was
assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated
upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was
filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by
the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved.
Complainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that
they violated the rule on conflict of interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on
conflict of interest and recommended that the respondents be
reprimanded.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting
interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Held:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the
respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are therefore Reprimanded
for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or
similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case
against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed in view of his death.
ARTHUR S. TULIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN,
Respondent.
Facts: Petitioner sought his legal advice concerning a property owned by
his mother who was then transferred in the names of third parties.
Respondent prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights signed by
all of his siblings in his favor. Thereafter, petitioner engaged the services of
respondent to represent him in filing a case for specific performance and
damages. To petitioner’s surprise, respondent was the counsel of his
siblings concerning the same subject property, filed a rescission of the
waiver of rights that the Respondent himself prepared and notarized.
Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify him. Subsequently, respondent filed a
petition as counsel for the siblings of the petitioner for conflict of interest.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Code
of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: The court ruled, respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is hereby
held GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
D.
TRINIDAD, ET.AL. vs. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN
A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013
Facts : The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific
performance filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) by the buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against
the subdivision's owner and developer- Purence Realty Corporation and
Roberto Bassig. The HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver
the Deeds of Sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning
litigants.
The Decision did not show any directive for the buyers to
vacate the property. Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal the
Decision, thus making it final and executory. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a
Writ of Execution. It was at this point that respondent Villarin entered his
special appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an
Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision and to quash the Writ of
Execution for being null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due
to the improper service of summons on his client. This motion was not
acted upon by the HLURB. Respondent sent demand letters to herein
complainants.
In all of these letters, he demanded that they immediately
vacate the property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days
from receipt. Otherwise, he would file the necessary action against them.
True enough, Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a
Complaint for forcible entry before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against
Trinidad, Lander, Casubuan and Mendoza.
Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case
against respondent. A month after, Alojado, Villamin and Tolentino filed a
disbarment case against respondent. As found by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants
asserted in their respective verified Complaints that the demand letters
sent by Villarin had been issued with malice and intent to harass them.
They insisted that the letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering
his client to permit the buyers to pay the balance of the purchase price of
the subdivision lots.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively
sanctioned for sending the demand letters?
Ruling: The respondent’s action is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states that:
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
The rule requires that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence
any document that they know is false like in the case at bar.
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-
MARGALLO, RESPONDENT.
Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo's (Atty. Margallo) inaction resulted in a
lost appeal, terminating the case of her client not on the merits but due to
her negligence. She made it appear that the case was dismissed on the
merits when, in truth, she failed to file the Appellant's Brief on time. She
did not discharge her duties of candor to her client. According to Ramirez,
Atty. Margallo contacted him on or about March 2004, as per a referral
from a friend of Ramirez's sister.[9] He alleged that Atty. Margallo had
offered her legal services on the condition that she be given 30% of the
land subject of the controversy instead of attorney's fees. Ramirez alleged
that Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. [22] By way of defense,
Atty. Margallo argued that she had agreed to take on the case for free, save
for travel expense of P1,000.00 per hearing. She also claimed that she had
candidly informed Ramirez and his mother that they only had a 50% chance
of winning the case.[23] She denied ever having entered into an agreement
regarding the contingent fee worth 30% of the value of the land subject of
the controversy.
Ruling:
Respondent Atty. Margallo was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal
counsel to Ramirez.
The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty.
Margallo and her client was palpable but was not due to the lack of
diligence of her client. This cost complainant Ramirez his entire case and
left him with no appellate remedies. His legal cause was orphaned not
because a court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but because a person
privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite
diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer
interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that
she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This is an admission
that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the basis of an
assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all possible
means to protect complainant Ramirez's interest, which is contrary to what
she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession.
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE,*Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI,
JR., Respondent.
The Facts
Complainant, as President of �Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma.
Corazon III, Incorporated� (Samahan), alleged that he engaged the
services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in order to determine
the true owner of the land being occupied by the members of Samahan.2 In
connection therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate amount of
P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees for the action to be instituted,
as evidenced by a written acknowledgment executed by respondent
himself.3Despite the payment, respondent failed to file an action in court.
When confronted, respondent explained that the money given to him was
not enough to fully pay for the filing fees in court. 4Thus, complainant asked
for the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent the
same and even demanded more money.5 Complainant further alleged that
when he persisted in seeking restitution of the aforesaid sum, respondent
told him to shut up because it was not his money in the first place. 6 Hence,
complainant filed this administrative complaint seeking the return of the
full amount he had paid to respondent.
In his defense,7 respondent denied spending complainant�s money,
explaining that he had already prepared the initiatory pleading and was
poised to file the same, when he discovered through the Clerk of Court of
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City that the filing fee was quite costly.
This prompted him to immediately relay such information to complainant
who undertook to raise the amount needed. While waiting, however, the
instant administrative case was filed against him. 8
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for the acts complained of.

The Court�s Ruling
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the findings
of the IBP, except as tothe penalty to be imposed upon respondent.
It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is
duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such
client�s cause with diligence, care, and devotion, whether he accepts it for
a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. 16 Therefore, a lawyer�s
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes
inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable for
violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18of the CPR
In the instant case, it is undisputed that complainant engaged the services
of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in court, and in connection
therewith, gave the amount of P48,000.00 to answer for the filing fees.
Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking
and offered the flimsy excuse that the money he received from
complainant was not enough to fully pay the filing fees.
AVIDA LAND CORPORATION v. ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO +
Complainant entered into a Contract to Sell with Rodman,[8] under which
the latter was to acquire from the former a subdivision house and lot in
Santa Rosa, Laguna through bank financing. In the event that such financing
would be disapproved, Rodman was supposed to pay the full contract price
of P4,412,254.00, less the downpayment of P1,323,676.20, within 15 days
from its receipt of the loan disapproval.[9]
After settling the downpayment, Rodman took possession of the
property.[10]
In three separate letters[11], complainant demanded that Rodman pay the
outstanding balance of P3,088,577.80.[12] Both parties agreed that the
amount would be paid on a deferred basis within 18 months
As Rodman remained in possession of the property,[16] complainant filed an
unlawful detainer case against the former before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Makati City.[17]
Soon after, Rodman filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the nullification of the rescission of the
Contract to Sell. It also prayed for the accounting of payments and the
fixing of the period upon which the balance of the purchase price should be
paid
THE RULING OF THE COURT
Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.
Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path
towards its resolution became long, tedious, and frustrating because of the
deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the actual execution of the
judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed
upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded
accusations of bias or procedural defects. These acts manifest his
propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse court
processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice.
Under the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's Guidelines for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions (IBP Guidelines), reprimand is generally appropriate as a
penalty when a lawyer's negligence causes injury or potential injury to a
client or a party.[69] In this case, respondent's injurious acts were clearly not
caused by his negligence in following procedures or court orders.