DUTY

NOT TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE SERVICES

Nery v. Sampana
A.C. No. 10196

DATE: September 9, 2014

FACTS:
Melody Nery filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Glicero A. Sampana for allegedly misleading Nery
that he filed the petition for adoption and refusing to return the attorney’s fee he received. According to
Nery, he obtained the services of Atty. Sampana for her annulment of marriage and her adoption by an
alien. On February 14, 2009, Atty. Sampana informed Nery that the petition for adoption is already filed.
But when Nery asked about the status of the case at Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan, Nery discovered that
no such petition was filed. Sampana argued that he did not file the petition because he was still waiting
for the certification. The IBP Commission of Bar Discipline recommended that Sampana be suspended for
three (3) months.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Sampana is guilty of unethical act

HELD:
The court agreed with the IBP but increased the imposed penalty. The court found that Sampana indeed
received compensation from Nery, and mislead her that he already filed the petition. The defense of
sampan is unavailing because the certification that Sampana alleged was necessary is waived under
Domestic Adoption Act to which Sampana himself admitted as the basis for the petition. The court took
note that Sampana had similar administrative case before, which merited the increase of penalty from
three months to three (3) years.


Ruby v. Espejo
A.C. No. 10558

DATE: February 23, 2015

FACTS:
Michael Ruby and his mother Feliciatas Ruby acquired the services of Atty. Espejo for the cancellation
and nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to their agreement Ruby will pay the amount of P100,000
to Atty. Espejo, P70,000 of which will be paid upon signing of the agreement and the remaining P30,000
will be paid after the hearing for the prayer for TRO. A separate P50,000 was given to Atty. Espejo to
serve as payment for filing fee, but the filing fee only amounted to P7,561. On September 23, 2009, Aty.
Espejo allegedly asked Ruby to give Atty. Bayot the remaining of P30,000 despite that the prayer for TRO
is yet to be heard. The amount of P4,000 was given to Atty. Bayot as acceptance fee, however, Ruby allege
that Atty. Bayot did not appear in court. Ruby also allege that respondent failed to update him as to the
status of his complaint. Atty. Bayot claimed that he is not the counsel of the complainants, that it was Atty.
Espejo and he merely assisted the latter. Atty. Espejo died which caused the charges against her to be
dropped.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Bayot violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RNMRQZ-DIGEST-LEGAL COUNSELING 1

HELD:
The court disagreed with Atty. Bayot’s contention that he is not the counsel of the complainants. Although
it was Atty. Espejo who was the counsel of record in the case, It was undisputed that Atty. Bayot prepared
the complaint and motion and received the acceptance fee of P8,000. Such circumstances clearly show
the existence of lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Bayot and the complainant. However, Atty.
Bayot could not be held liable for the excess filing fee because it was Atty. Espejo who received the
money. With regards to alleged neglect of Atty. Bayot, the court finds the claim to be unsubstantiated. The
court held in disbarment cases that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence and the burden of
proof lies with upon the complainant.

Campugan v. Tolentino Jr.
A.C. No. 8261-8725

DATE: March 11, 2015

FACTS:
Jessie Campugan and Robert Torres (complainants) brought a civil action to annul TCT No. N-290546
against Ramon and Josefina Ricafort. They employed the services of Atty. Victorio, Jr. while the opposing
party was represented by Atty. Tolentino, Jr. Subsequently, the parties entered into an amicable
settlement during the pendency of the case. Pursuant to the terms of the amicable settlement, Atty.
Victorio, Jr. filed a motion to withdraw complaint which the RTC granted. Complainants eventually
learned that new annotations were made on TCT No. N-290546 cancelling the affidavit of adverse claim
and the notice of lis pendens with the grant of withdrawal as basis. Atty. Quilala, Chief Registrar of
Registrar of Deeds, through the acting Registrar Atty. Cunanan effected the annotation. Complainants
filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Victorio, Jr., Atty. Tolentino, Jr, Atty. Quilala and Atty. Cunanan for
conspiring with one another to cause the annotation.

ISSUE/S:
Are the lawyers liable?

HELD:
The court ruled that the complaint for disbarment is bereft of merit. The complainants’ allegation of the
respondents’ acts and omissions are insufficient to establish any censurable conduct against them. What
Atty. Victorio, Jr. did is only in compliance with the amicable settlement between the parties. The Code of
Professional Responsibility also provides that lawyers should encourage their clients to enter into
amicable settlements provided that it is not disadvantageous. With regard to the registrars, the court
finds no abuse of authority or irregularity committed. Annotating the TCT was a ministerial function that
doesn’t need any exercise of judgment. When Atty. Quilala and his subordinates caused the annotation,
they are merely relying to the RTC decision. Disbarment complaint dismissed.











RNMRQZ-DIGEST-LEGAL COUNSELING 2

DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Aniñon v. Sabistana Jr.
A.C. No. 5098

DATE: April 11, 2012

FACTS:
Josefina Aniñon engaged the services of Atty. Sabistana for the execution in her favor of a deed of sale
over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja Jr. Atty. Sabistana later
represented Zenaida Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja Jr. After learning of Atty. Sabistana’s
representation of Cañete, Aniñon file a complaint for disbarment againt Atty. Sabistana for conflict of
interest and using of confidential information obtained from her. The IBP found Atty. Sabistana liable for
representing conflict of interest.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Sabistana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflict of interests

HELD:
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. A client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an
expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion. There is an apparent conflict of interest
when Atty. Sabistana both represented Aniñon and Cañete who both have interest in the parcel of land
left by Caneja. There was also no evidence of Atty. Sabistana disclosing the conflict or obtaining the
consent of Aniñon and Cañete as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Sabistana’s acts
meted the penalty of suspension for the period of 1 year.

Lee v. Simando
A.C. No. 9537

DATE: June 10, 2013

FACTS:
Atty. Simando is the retained counsel by Dr. Teresita Lee, with a monthly retainer fee of P3,000. While
employed as counsel, Atty. Simando forced Dr. Lee to extend a loan to Felicito Mejorado, a client of Atty.
Simando and even presented himself as a guarantor to induce Dr. Lee to extend a loan. Dr. Lee eventually
heded to the request of Simando and loaned the amount of P1,400,000 to Mejorado. When Dr. Lee
demanded the return of her money, Mejorado failed prompting Dr. Lee to instruct Atty. Simando to file a
case against Mejorado, but the latter refused.

ISSUE/S:
Is Atty. Sismando administratively liable?

HELD:
The court finds substantial evidence to support respondent’s violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is undisputed that despite the knowledge of conflicting interest between his two clients,
respondent consented in the loan agreement and even sign as a guarantor. Clearly, it is improper for
respondent to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is also his client. The court
also found Atty. Sismundo liable for violating Rule 21.01 of Code of Professional Responsibility. In his
last-ditch effort to impeach the credibility of complainant, he divulged informations which he acquired in
RNMRQZ-DIGEST-LEGAL COUNSELING 3

confidence during the existence of their lawyer-client relationship. Atty. Sismando was penalized with
suspension for three (3) months.

Samson v. Era
A.C. No. 6664

DATE: July 16, 2013

FACTS:
Ferdinand Samson and his relatives was victimized by ICS Corporation’s pyramiding scam, which were
led by Sison. Atty. Era served as the Samson’s counsel for the criminal case against Sison and his cohorts.
An amicable settlement was reached by the parties, by which a property in Antipolo will be allocated to
the Samsons as a mode of payment. The Samsons tried to liquidate the property, they were prevented
from doing so because the property is not in the name of ICS Corporation. They also learned that Atty. Era
now represents Sison in the estafa cases faced by Sison. Atty. Era argues that his professional relationship
with the Samsons was terminated when the amicable settlement was agreed.

ISSUE/S:
Is Atty. Era guilty of misconduct

HELD:
The court affirms the finding of IBP that Atty. Era is guilty of misconduct. The argument of Atty. Era is
untenable, the lawyer-client relationship of Atty. Era and the Samsons subsist even if there is amicable
settlement. It is the duty of Atty. Era to see to it that the settlement was executed. The existence of the
amicable settlement is not a desistance of the criminal case, only the civil case was affected of such
settlement. Therefore, Atty. Era remains to be the counsel of the Samsons and his subsequent
representation of Sison is a clear conflict of interest.


Jimenez v. Francisco
A.C. No. 10548

DATE: December 10, 2014

FACTS:
Mark Crespo aka Mark Jimenez filed an estafa case against her relatives including complainant. The
dispute arose from the management of Clarion Development and Realty and Development Corporation
(Clarion for brevity). Atty. Francisco was involved in the fiasco when he executed an affidavit in behalf of
Mark Jimenez, alleging of the fraudulent acts of Caroline et. al. Upon learning such affidavit, Caroline
Jimenez filed a complaint against Atty. Francisco for conflict of interest because she is his client, being a
share holder of Clarion when Atty. Francisco served as a corporate counsel.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
The court found Atty. Francisco guilty of violating Canon 1 of Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandates lawyers to uphold the laws and legal processes. During the course of investigation it was
discovered and even admitted by Atty. Francisco that he aided in simulating a loan in favor of Clarion and
even assisted in misrepresentation with the SEC. However with regard to the conflict of interest, the
RNMRQZ-DIGEST-LEGAL COUNSELING 4

court found the allegations of complainant unsubstantiated for her failure to establish that she was
indeed the client of Atty. Francisco. A suspension with the period of six (6) months is given to Atty.
Francisco.

Diongzon v. Mirano
A.C. No. 2404

DATE: August 17, 2016

FACTS:
Nilo Diongzon is a businessman engaged in fishing business. In 1979, he retained respondent Atty.
Mirano as his legal counsel and represent him in a civil case against Spouses Almanzur and Milagros
Gonzales (Gonzaleses). In 1982, the Gonzaleses sued Diongzon for replevin and damages. They were
represented by Atty. Romero Flora, an associate of Atty. Mirano, who eventually represented the
Gonzaleses. This prompted Diongzon to file an administrative case against Atty. Mirano

ISSUE/S:
Is the respondent guilty of representing conflict of interest?

HELD:
When Atty. Mirano appeared in court for the benefit of the Gonzaleses to try the case against the
complainant, the respondent unquestionably incurred a conflict of interest. A lawyer is bound to respect
the relationship and to maintain the trust and confidence of his client. No written agreement is necessary
to generate a lawyer-client relationship, but in formalizing it, the lawyer may present a retainer
agreement to be considered and agreed to by the client. From the contract between Diongzon and
Mirano, it is clear that there is a retainer agreement. With such agreement, Atty. Mirano is bound to
maintain confidentiality even after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship.

RNMRQZ-DIGEST-LEGAL COUNSELING 5