CRUZ VS CABRERA

Facts:

Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, he instituted
several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases; he met
respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a hearing on January 14, 2002, in one case
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.

Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court to ask
complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public, inasmuch as
respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his behalf as a party litigant
in prior cases; respondent’s imputations of complainant’s misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with
malice to discredit his honor, with the intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases
respondent was handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words “appear ka ng
appear, pumasa ka muna!” were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate,
malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether or not complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases
Whether or not complainant is engaged in the practice of law

Ruling: 1. We hold that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does not
amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such single outburst,
though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a
product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has
been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the
moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even
contemptuous language.

2. Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his
cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court: SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may
conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or
with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an
attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

3. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a profession or
vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as counsel by
rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been defined by this Court as follows:
x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall
within the prohibition of statute [referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of
the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been
interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding
payment for such services. x x x.

Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out to the
public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be said to
be in the practice of law.
 On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be
dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE,* COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., RESPONDENT.

Before the Court is an administrative complaint[1] dated May 9, 2006 filed by complainant Eduardo A.
Maglente (complainant), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), against respondent Atty. Delfin
R. Agcaoili, Jr. (respondent), praying that the latter be directed to return the amount of P48,000.00 that he
received from the former.

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.[3] Despite 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.[4] Thus, 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 IBP's Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation[9] dated October 3, 2012, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found
respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and
accordingly, recommended that he be: (a) meted with the penalty of Censure, with a warning that a
repetition of the same will be met with a stiffer penalty; and (b) directed to account for or return the
amount of P48,000.00 to complainant.[10]

The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent clearly received the amount of P48,000.00 from
complainant, which was intended to answer for the filing fees of a case he was supposed to file for
the Samahan, but which he failed to do so.[11] In this relation, the Investigating Commissioner observed
that had respondent prepared the complaint and performed research works, as he claimed, then he could
have kept a reasonable amount for his effort under the doctrine of quantum meruit, but unfortunately, he
could not present any proof in this respect.[12]

In a Resolution[13] dated May 11, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid
Report and Recommendation, with modification increasing the recommended penalty from Censure to
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months. Aggrieved, respondent moved for
reconsideration[14]which was, however, denied in a Resolution[15] dated May 3, 2014.
 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,[17] which reads:

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
[therewith] shall render him liable.

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.

Furthermore, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to
refund the amount of P48,000.00 that complainant gave him despite repeated demands, viz.:

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 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.

Verily, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to
render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose.
Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must be immediately returned to the
client.[18] A lawyer's failure to return the money to his client despite numerous demands is a violation of
the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity,[19] as in this case.

Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession
commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment, [20] and hence, must be
disciplined accordingly.

Having established respondent's administrative liability, the Court now determines the proper penalty to
be imposed.

Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their clients' affairs and, at the
same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court meted out the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[21] the Court suspended the
lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership
agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter. [22]Similarly, in Meneses v.
Macalino,[23] the same penalty was imposed on a lawyer who failed to render any legal service to his
client as well as to return the money he received for such purpose.[24] In view of the foregoing, the Court
finds it appropriate that respondent be meted with the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year.

Finally, the Court sustains the directive for respondent to account for or return the amount of P48,000.00
to complainant. It is well to note that "while the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings
should only revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his civil
liability, it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil
in nature for instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a
transaction separate and distinct [from] and not intrinsically linked to his professional
engagement."[25] Since the aforesaid amount was intended to answer for filing fees which is intimately
related to the lawyer-client relationship between complainant and respondent, the Court finds the return
thereof to be in order.[26]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. (respondent), is found GUILTY of violating Rules
16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

Furthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Eduardo A. Maglente the amount of

P48,000.00 he received from the latter within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Decision. Failure to
comply with the foregoing directive will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent's record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies
of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

MELANIO S. SALITA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, RESPONDENT.

This instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint[1] filed by complainant Melanio S. Salita
(Salita) against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve (Atty. Salve) in connection with the latter'salleged
falsification of public documents.

The Facts

On December 14, 2002, Salita the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Visayan Village, Tagum
City[2] with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-67850[3] (subject property) applied for a loan fromone Jocelyn
Rodriguez (Rodriguez) in the amount of P50,000.00 and, in such regard, signed blank documents,
including an "incomplete" Promissory Note (PN).[4] Subsequently, herestructured the aforesaid loanand
further signed several documents prepared by the latter, including two (2) Real Estate Mortgage
Agreements dated November 9, 2005[5] and November 18, 2005[6] (REM instruments), and a pre-formed
Deed of Absolute Sale[7]covering the subject property as collateral.[8]

On November 15, 2006, Salita was able to pay his loan in full as evidenced by a Release of Real Estate
Mortgage[9] executed by Rodriguez before Notary Public Buenaventura Melendres, which was later duly
entered in the Register of Deeds of Davao Del Norte.[10]

Notwithstanding such full payment, Rodriguez, on September 17, 2007, instituted an ejectment
complaint[11] against Salita before the Office of the Barangay of Visayan Village, Tagum City, presenting
in furtherance of his cause the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale and the two (2) REM instruments
signed by the latter.[12] Upon checking the said documents, Salita discovered that the Deed of Absolute
Sale had already been notarized[13] by Atty. Salve andhis Community Tax Certificate Numbers were
allegedly falsified.[14] During a Barangay Conciliation proceeding, Rodriguez presented the same
documents to reinforce her claims. Salita, for his part, noticed that one copy of the Deed of Sale was
purportedly notarized on August 12, 2007,[15] while another was notarized a month later, or on September
12, 2007.[16] Thus, Salita went on to conclude that because of the foregoing events, it appeared as if he
had sold the subject property to Rodriguez and executed the same before Atty. Salve.[17] Aggrieved,
Salita filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Rodriguez[18] and Atty.
Salve.[19] Salita likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve.

In his defense,[20] Atty. Salve vehemently denied that he falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale. He averred
that the said document was regular on its face except the month of sale, i.e., August 12, 2007 instead of
September 12, 2007, which is a mere clerical error due to "sheer" inadvertence on the part of his
secretary. Accounting for such, Atty. Salve claimed that the date stamp accidentally slid to August instead
of September as it was also being used by three (3) other office clerks and two (2) lawyers for other office
documents.[21]Atty. Salvefurther narrated that both Salita and Rodriguez went to him and brought the PN
and other loan documents executed by Salitahimself. He also clarified that the PN was notarized in their
presence on December 12, 2002 and both got a copy right after. Atty. Salve then inferred that it was
Salita who erased the PN's machine printed numbers using his own handwriting and thereafter
photocopied it to make it appear that the document was not among the notarial documents he submitted
to the Office of the Clerk of Court of Tagum Cityfor the year 2002.[22] Finally, Atty. Salve averred that the
certified electronic copies of the PN in the Office of the Clerk of Court of Tagum City and the ones in his
law office are identical and the same, while Salita's alleged falsified photocopy is totally different.[23]

The IBP Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation[24] dated January 4, 2010, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Investigating Commissionerdismissed Salita's complaint for lack of merit.[25] He found that Salita was not
able to obtain the required quantum of proofto hold Atty. Salve administratively liable, especially
considering that Salita's criminal complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause. [26]

In aResolution[27] dated December 29, 2012 (December 29, 2012 Resolution), the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the IBP Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
dismissing the case for lack of merit.

On reconsideration,[28] however, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution[29] dated March 8, 2014
(March 8, 2014 Resolution) setting aside its December 29, 2012 Resolution and accordingly,
recommended the suspension of Atty. Salve's notarial commission for a period of three (3) months. It,
however, failed tostatethe reasons forimposing the suspension.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Atty. Salve should be held administratively
liable.

The Court's Ruling

The Court rules in the affirmative.

Before delving on the merits, the Court finds it proper to first call out the IBP for failing to articulate the
reasons behind its resolution. Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court mandates that the decision
of the IBP Board of Governors shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is
based:

SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. (a) Every case heard by an investigator shall
be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the
Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall
clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the
Investigator's Report. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court further states that:

SEC. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. x xx

(b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should
be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action. (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, although the IBP's recommendation only covers herein respondent's notarial commission and
not his license to practice law, still, in view of the necessary connection between the two (for only
members of the Bar in good standing may be commissioned as notaries public [30]), the Court equally
exhorts compliance with the preceding provision requiringthe IBP Board of Governors to set forth its
findings, both of fact and law, and its recommendations in the resolution it submits to this Court for final
action.

With its March 8, 2014 Resolution barren of any reason to support the proffered recommendation, said
body had clearly failed to comply with the foregoing provisions.Thus, it isstrongly prompted to be ever-
mindful of the above-mentioned rules.

Be that as it may, the Court takes up the cudgels and explains the reasons warranting the suspension of
Atty. Salve's notarial commission.

To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by
Atty. Salve to file an ejectment complaint against Salita. However, it must be remembered that Salita was
merely made to sign such document as collateral for his loan and that he had already fully paid the same,
as evidenced by the notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez
herself. Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salitato appear before Atty. Salve to
have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence, the Court finds
that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita's presence before him.

Verily, anotary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the
truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated
therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their
representative's names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same. [31]

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By
affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private
document into a public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve,as borne from the records of this
case,effectively proclaimed to the world that: (a) all the parties therein personally appeared before him;
(b) they are all personally known to him; (c) they were the same persons who executed the instruments;
(d) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (e) they acknowledged
personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same. [32] As a lawyer commissioned to
be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful observance and
utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Having failed in this
regard, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. His act of
certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal appearance of the
persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public. [33]

In the case of Atty. Dela Cruz v. Atty. Zabala,[34] the Court revoked the errant lawyer's notarial commission
and disqualified him from being commissioned as such for a period of two (2) years for similarly
committing gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public through his failure to
ascertain the identities of the persons executing the Deed of Absolute sale he notarized[35] Thus, due to
the infractions' relative comparability, the Court finds it apt to impose the same against Atty. Salve,
thereby effectively modifying the suspension initially recommended by the IBP.

As a final point, it bears noting that unlike the aforesaid misdeed which palpably appears from the records
the Court expresses its concurrence with the IBP Investigating Commissioner's finding that Atty. Salve
should nevertheless be absolved from the falsification charges against him. Suffice it to state that Salita
failed to prove the allegations against Atty. Salve, especially considering the resolutions in the criminal
case against the latter finding no probable cause to indict him of the crime of Falsification of Public
Documents.[36] That being said, only Atty. Salve's administrative liability for gross negligence in his
conduct as a notary public stands.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve is found GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct
as a notary public. His notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he
is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.

SPS. HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION v. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA,
AC. No. 10681, 2015-02-03
Facts:
complainants alleged that from 1997[2] until August 2008,[3] respondent served as their retained lawyer
and counsel.
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 venture, respondent, on
March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow the amount of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to return, with
interest, five (5) days thereafter.
agreed to lend the aforesaid sum to respondent. She thereby issued three (3) EastWest Bank checks[5]
in respondent's name... 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
P2,500,000.00, plus monthly interest of five percent (5%),... within five (5) days.
the foregoing checks were personally encashed by respondent.
the day respondent promised to return the money, he failed to pay complainants.
complainants began demanding payment but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay soon.
complainants, through their new counsel, Atty. Kathryn Jessica dela Serna, sent another demand
letter[11] to respondent.[12] In... his Reply,[13] the latter denied borrowing any money from the
complainants. Instead, respondent 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 in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City. The parties, however, failed to reach a
settlement.
the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter received complainants' letter-complaint[15] charging respondent with
violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR.
the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter endorsed the letter-complaint to the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD)... the IBP Investigating Commissioner... respondent's claim that Nault was the real debtor was
found to be implausible. The Investigating Commissioner remarked that if it is true that respondent was
not the one who obtained the loan, he would have responded to complainants' demand letter; however,
he... did not.
In fine, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent's actions degraded the integrity of the
legal profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR.
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to
return the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.
the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner's Report... reduced
the penalty against the respondent to indefinite suspension from the practice of law
Issues:
whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
Ruling:
The Court concurs with the IBP's findings
Respondent's receipt of the P2,500,000.00 loan from complainants is amply supported by substantial
evidence.
With respondent's direct transactional involvement and the actual benefit he derived therefrom,... absent
too any credible indication to the contrary, the Court is thus convinced that respondent was indeed the
one who borrowed the amount of P2,500,000.00 from complainants, which amount he had failed to
return, despite their insistent pleas.
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.
On the other hand, complainants were able to submit documents showing respondent's receipt of... the
checks and their encashment, as well as his agreement to return the P2,500,000.00 plus interest. This is
bolstered by the fact that the loan transaction was entered into during the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between him and complainants,[45] allowing the former to wield a greater influence over the
latter in view of the trust and confidence inherently imbued in such relationship.
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client
unless the client's interests are fully protected
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued
with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this "trust and confidence" is prone
to abuse. 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.[46] The rule presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.
respondent borrowed money from complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the lack of
any security on the loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent,
complainants relied solely on the former's word that he... will return the money plus interest within five (5)
days. However, respondent abused the same and reneged on his obligation, giving his previous clients
the runaround up to this day. Accordingly, there is no quibble that respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the
CPR.
In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated Canon 7 of the CPR
In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent
abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Thus, he should be equally... held administratively liable on
this score.
The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based
on the surrounding facts.
Considering the greater amount... involved in this case and respondent's continuous refusal to pay his
debt, the Court deems it apt to suspend him from the practice of law for three (3) years
The Court also deems it appropriate to modify the IBP's Resolution insofar as it orders respondent to
return to complainants the amount of P2,500,000.00 and the legal interest thereon. It is settled that in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the... officer of the court is still fit to be
allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.[52] In such cases, the Court's only concern is the
determination of respondent's administrative liability; it should not involve his civil liability for money
received... from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his professional
engagement. In this case, respondent received the P2,500,000.00 as a loan from complainants and not in
consideration of his professional services. Hence, the IBP's recommended... return of the aforementioned
sum lies beyond the ambit of this administrative case, and thus cannot be sustained.

Pepsi Cola vs Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 518 (1998)

Facts: The case is a petition for review and certiorari by the petitioner upon the denial by the lower and
appellate court on their motion for reconsideration for the postponement of the hearing due to
unavailability of their witnesses and for declaring that the petitioner waived its right to present evidence in
support to its defense. The case began from the civil action filed by private respondents who won from
the Pepsi Number Fever Promotion" sponsored by petitioner Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc.,
wherein numerous holders of the supposedly winning "349" crowns were not honored and paid by
petitioner due to an alleged mistake in the security codes in the crowns. While the private respondents
are finished presenting their evidence, the petitioner continues to file a motion for postponement due to
unavailability of witnesses. The schedule for presentation of evidence began on May 28, 1993 and with
frequent postponement, the court issued a warning to the petitioner’s counsel that the scheduled hearing
on January 20, 1995 shall be intransferrable in character. Notwithstanding said warning, petitioner moved
for postponement again which motion was denied by the court for unreasonable delay on the case. The
court of appeals affirmed the said decision hence this petition for certiorari

ISSUE: WON the court erred in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING: The court held that the petitioner was given ample time to prepare for their witnesses causing
the trial to take up to 2 years due to their motion for postponement and reminded the counsel of the
petitioner that they have the duty to give proper administration of justice without any delay and dismissed
the petition for lack of merit.

Lothar Schulz vs Atty. Marcelo G. Flores

[A.C. No. 4219. December 8, 2003]

FACTS:
The petitioner is a German national who filed a verified complaint for disbarment against the respondent.
The respondent was a lawyer of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental charged of breaching his avowed duty
as a lawyer and ethical standards he was strictly bound to observe. The petitioner alleged that he
engaged the services of respondent for purposes of filing a complaint against Wilson Ong. Respondent
advised him that there was no need to refer his complaint for barangay election yet 3 months later,
petitioner was instructed by respondent to file his complaint with the Lupon Tagapayapa.
Wilson Ong did not appear at the conciliation hearings arguing that he is a resident of another barangay
thus, not subject to the jurisdiction of the barangay where petitioner filed his complaint.
Accordingly, complainant has now filed to the barangay where Wilson Ong is a resident of but then a
case against him was already filed by the latter before the RTC of Negros Oriental. Upon this
occurrence, petitioner alleged that it was respondent’s fault causing him of being defendant
rather than a complainant against Wilson Ong. He also charged respondent with collecting excessive and
unreasonable fees and of unjustifiably refusing to return his files. In his
Answer, respondent contend the amount of his attorney’s fees and appearance fee per
hearing. In the same way, he also explained that it was Wilson Ong who will be made to pay the side
fees. The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline submitted a report recommending the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 6
months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent performed his duty as expected and required of being a lawyer

Held: GUILTY of negligence and incompetence. SUSPENDED for (6) months. RETURN the money of
complainant with interest. STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar act in the future
will be dealt with more severely.

The breach of respondent’s sworn duty as a lawyer and of the ethical standards he was strictly to honor
and observe has been sufficiently established. Respondent has fallen short of the competence and
diligence required of every member of the Bar.

CANON 17. – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18. – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

Respondent erred in not returning complainant’s money despite demands after his failure to file the case
and his devious act of compelling complainant to sign a document stating that he has no financial
obligation to complainant in exchange of the return of complainant’s papers. This conduct violated the
following Canon:

CANON 15. – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

Rule 16.03. – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of client when due or upon demand.

The failure of an attorney to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he
has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and violation of the trust reposed in him by the
client. It is not only a gross violation of the general morality as well as of professional ethics; it also
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. In short, it is settled that the
unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the imposition of
disciplinary action.

A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is
beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith and fairness.