ATTY. SOLIDON v. ATTY.

MACALALAD

In Villaflores, we opined that even if the client has been equally at fault for
the lack of communication, the main responsibility remains with the lawyer to
inquire and know the best means to acquire the required information. We held that
as between the client and his lawyer, the latter has more control in handling the case.

All these rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyers duty to his client
once an engagement for legal services is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent
a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost
diligence.[18] The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and
diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the
interest of his or her client.[19] Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of
law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate
attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.[20]

A.C. NO. 8158 – FEBRUARY 24, 2010

BRION, J.

Complainant charged respondent with gross negligence. Records show that Complainant asked
respondent to handle a judicial titling of a parcel of land in Eastern Samar, owned by relatives of
the former.

Complainant, 6 months after paying initial legal fees, contacted respondent to follow up on the
case. Respondent never replied.

Respondent avers that no contact was ever made to him, and that he actually could not contact
the complaining party. He also posits that he could not file the action for he lacked documentary
evidence necessary for the same.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent is guilty of gross negligence.

RULING:
YES. The CPR states – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence therewith shall render him liable. There was substantial evidence showing that it was
the lack of diligence by respondent that caused the miscommunication.

SPS. ARANDA v. ATTY. ELAYDA

From the foregoing, it is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and
safeguard the interests of his clients. He should be conscientious, competent and
diligent in handling his clients cases. Atty. Elayda should give adequate attention,
care, and time to all the cases he is handling. As the spouses Arandas counsel, Atty.
Elayda is expected to monitor the progress of said spouses case and is obligated to
exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the
cause espoused by the spouses Aranda.

A.C. NO. 7907 – DECEMBER 15, 2010

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Respondent was counsel for Complainant spouses. Former handled the latter’s civil case, where
the same failed to inform the latter of the date of hearing as well as order of judgment.

This resulted in a surprise taking of their attached property. Complainant posits that respondent
neglected their case, which resulted in the adverse judgment.

Further, it was shown that no motion for reconsideration was ever filed by respondent, to the
prejudice of the complainants.

Respondent counters that he could not contact the complainants, which resulted in the resulting
loss of the case.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent is guilty of negligence.

RULING:
YES. A lawyer should be conscientious in handling a case for his clients. CPR states that a
lawyer shall service his clients with competence and diligence. Any miscommunication should
be attended to with diligence by the lawyer.

By also showing no fervor for the case, he violated another canon which provides that a lawyer
shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.

ATTY. BRIONES v. ATTY. JIMENEZ

As aptly pointed out by complainant, respondent should have first filed the
proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said Order instead
of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him.

Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the
RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and
not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.

A.C. NO. 6691 – APRIL 27, 2007

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Complainant was estate administrator of the late Luz Henson. Respondent was counsel of the
decedent’s heirs.

Respondent’s party appealed a certain judgment, questioning the payment of commission to

complainant. They allege that there was unjust payment and enrichment on the part of
complainant.

CA issued a mandamus against complainant to conduct an audit on the assailed payments.

Complainant did not heed the mandamus.

Thereafter, respondent party filed a criminal complaint against herein complainant for resisting
and seriously disobeying the court order.

Here, complainant administratively charges respondent for violation of the CPR.

ISSUE:

WoN it was proper for respondent to file criminal charges.

RULING:

NO. CPR provides that 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. It was
improper for respondents to jump on a criminal charge when other means could yet be
exhausted.

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. BOHOL v. ATTY. FLORIDO

The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.[6] Likewise,
it is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain
from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal
system.[7]

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a
lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of
fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client.[8] It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to
their adversaries

A.C. NO. 5736

CARPIO, J.

FACTS:

Complainant alleges that respondent and his clients (Nazareno-Relampagos group) forcibly took
over the management and premises of RCBI Bohol.
They forcibly evicted the manager at the time and installed their own. It was further alleged that
the respondent party did this through force and intimidation and with the aid of armed men.

Respondent explained in his comment that his acts were only in accordance with the authority
granted to him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group; that the act was valid because said group
was the validly elected board of directors of RCBI.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent violated the CPR.

RULING:
YES. Canon 19 states that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law.
While the objective was valid, the means to effect the same were unlawful. Respondent should
not have allowed his client to effect change by taking the law into their own hands.

MIRANDA v. ATTY. CARPIO

It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his
client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the
engagement of his services. At the outset, respondent should have informed the
complainant of all the fees or possible fees that he would charge before handling
the case and not towards the near conclusion of the case.

Quantum meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for

determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but
recoverable by him from his client."[12] The principle of quantum meruit applies if
a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services. In such a case,
he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much as he has
earned.[13] In the present case, the parties had already entered into an agreement
as to the attorney's fees of the respondent, and thus, the principle of quantum
meruitdoes not fully find application because the respondent is already
compensated by such agreement.

A.C. NO. 6281 – SEPTEMBER 26, 2011

PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant filed for the disbarment of respondent. The latter was retained counsel of the
former in a land dispute case.

Both parties agreed on a P20,000 acceptance fee and P2,000 appearance fee. Complainant fully
paid what was agreed upon.

Near the termination of the case, respondent asked for P10,000 which was supposedly for filing
of a brief that would “strengthen their case.” In addition, respondent requested that he be given
20% of the value of the land disputed as part of his fees.

Not being agreed upon, complainant dismissed the demand. Relationship of the parties thereafter
became sore.

When complainant went to get the certificate of title from the RD, he found out that the same
was already released to respondent lawyer. The latter, for the release of the certificates,
demanded a 20% take from the property.

ISSUE:

WoN lawyer can validly ask for the 20%.

RULING:

NO. CPR provides that a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. The act of
withholding the certificate title was an abuse of his office as a lawyer. Neither may respondent’s
theory that he is entitled to the 20% for quantum meruit; the same only applies when there is no
pre-arranged deal for lawyer’s fees.
SANTECO v. ATTY. AVANCE

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve
the client with competence and diligence and champion the latters cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to
the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This
simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to
assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is
because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not
only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client;
he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession. [24]

A.C. NO. 5834 – DECEMBER 11, 2003

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant was a defendant in an action for ejectment in 1998 wherein a judgment was
rendered against her.

During said proceedings, she terminated her counsel and replaced her with herein respondent.
Complainant paid respondent P12,000 as acceptance fee. Respondent refused to issue receipts for
the amounts paid despite repeated demands.

When said adverse judgment was rendered against complainant, respondent proposed that they
file a petition for certiorari; complainant once again filed for the service.

Said petition for certiorari was never filed. Further, it was found that respondent withdrew as
counsel for the case without notifying complainant.

ISSUE:
WoN respondent violated the CPR.

RULING:

YES. However, the negligence was not gross. Respondent was remiss in her duties by not filing
for certiorari when the same was agreed upon and paid for. Further, she violated the CPR as
regards the provision saying a lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.

YAO v. ATTY. AURELIO

The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to
him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve
the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The protection
given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change
of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.7

Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.8 Lawyers cannot be allowed to
exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility
against any person—most especially against a client or former client.

A.C. NO. 7023 – MARCH 30, 2006

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant alleged that since the late 80s, respondent was his personal counsel. Aside from
this, respondent was also a shareholder and retained counsel of a corporation, where complainant
is majority stockholder.

Complainant alleged that in the late 90s, respondent had a disagreement with his sister, which is
the wife of complainant. The falling out caused the respondent to file several charges of estafa
and falsification against complainant and wife.

Complainant alleged that the information upon which the charges were based were borne of
complainant and respondent’s lawyer-client privilege.
ISSUE:

WoN respondent violated CPR by filing criminal charges against complainant.

YES. It was found that the lawyer-client relationship was deeply entrenched, going further than
mere representation for the corporation. Thus, respondent was bound to preserve the secrets of
his client even after the termination of the relation. Respondent should not have used the
information given to him by reason of his employment as against complainants.

TAN v. ATTY. PORTUGAL

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the
relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental
rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly
stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A
lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written
consent or from a good cause.16

A.C. NO. 6155 – MARCH 14, 2006

TINGA, J.

Spouses of herein complainants were certain policemen who were involved in a shootout. Said
incident resulted in the death of two individuals and serious injury of another.

This even resulted in a criminal charge against them for murder and frustrated murder. They
pleaded not guilty and trial ensued before the Sandiganbayan.

The court found them guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide. At this point, respondent was
hired as their counsel.

Respondent appealed the decision, which was denied. Thereafter, a second motion for
reconsideration was filed. Such a motion was prohibited, and so was left to the discretion of the
court whether or not to entertain.
Said motion was denied, and the parties agreed to file for certiorari. After that, complainants
were never informed of the case status. It was only much later that they discovered that
respondent changed address and that the certiorari pleading was filed out of time. They also
learned that they had a standing warrant of arrest.

It was also discovered that respondent withdrew as counsel without notifying the clients.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent committed gross negligence and misconduct.

YES. Criminal cases require the utmost diligence of lawyers for the life and liberty of their
clients depend upon them. Here, complainants were greatly prejudiced when, through his
negligence, failed to file on time the certiorari pleading. Furthermore, it was held by the Court
that there was no just cause for his withdrawal of services.

MACARRUBO v. ATTY. MACARRUBO

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37,
Appealing for Clemency,8 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency, to wit:

A.C. NO. 6148 – FEBRUARY 27, 2004

PER CURIAM

In an earlier complaint, respondent was disbarred for contracting two bigamous marriages while
the original one subsisted.

Complainant, in this petition for “extraordinary mercy,” prays the Court that he be reinstated in
light of the reformation he undertook, whereby he made good as to his past wrongdoings.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent should be reinstated.

YES. Sufficient evidence has been shown to the Court attesting to respondent’s reformation. In
this case, the Court gave the requisites for judicial clemency:
1) Proof of remorse and reformation, attested by testimonies of IBP members and prominent
community members
2) Sufficient lapse of time for reform
3) Must have productive years ahead of him
4) Showing of promise and potential for public service
5) Other relevant factors to justify clemency