Atty. Solidon v Atty. Macalalad
Elayda
- Atty. Solidon sought the disbarment of Atty.
Macalalad for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule
18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the CPR involving
negligence in handling a care.
their case. In the case where they are
- Macalalad (Chief of Legal Division of DENR,
allowed to practice law) was on official visit
when he was introduced to Solidon. He asked
Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a
parcel of land. He accepted then received
initial payment, remaining will be paid when he
receive the certificate of title of the property.
inform the spouses Aranda despite their follow
- Macalalad has not filed any petition for
registration of the property sought to be titled.
Complainant claimed he tried to contact
respondent to follow-up on the status of the
case through calls, messages and even known
acquaintances and relatives, and through a
courier to Macalalad. However, he did not
respond.
executory then a writ of execution was issued.
- In his Answer, Macalalad posited that the delay
in the filing was caused by his client’s failure to
communicate with him. He explained that he
had no intention of reneging on his obligation
as he had already prepared the draft but failed
to file because he still lacked the needed
evidence that his clients should have
furnished. Macalalad denied that complainant
tried to communicate with him.
postponement to confer with them but they
- IBP found that their mutual acquaintance
repeatedly followed-up with respondent but
turned a deaf ear towards the same.
Respondent failed to present reasonable
excuse for the non-filing. It was plain
negligence contrary to the mandate prescribed
in Rule 18.03 of the CPR which enjoins a
lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him and it even provides that his negligence
shall render him liable.
effort within the bounds of law.
- The Court consistency held, in construing the
Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to
perform the obligations due to the client is
considered per se a violation. The
circumstance that the client was also at fault
does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for
his negligence in handling a case. A lawyer
cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to
follow up on his case because it was the
lawyer’s duty to inform his client of the status
of the case. He shall protect the client’s
interest with utmost diligence, within the
bounds of law.
- Suspended for 6 months for violation of Rule
16.03 and 18.03 of the CPR.
Spouses Aranda v Atty.
- Spouses Aranda filed a complaint, charging
their former counsel, Atty. Elayda, with gross
negligence or gross misconduct in handling
defendants, they alleged that Atty. Elayda’s
handling of their case was “sorely inadequate,
as shown by his failure to follow elementary
norms of civil procedure and evidence”.
- Alleged that on a hearing of the case, the
notice was sent to Atty. Elayda and he did not
up. Both did not appear in the hearing. Atty.
Elayda did not do anything to have it
reconsidered and the court ended judgment
adverse to spouses Aranda in which they are
totally unaware because no copy was sen to
them. Atty. Elayda did not file a notice of
appeal hence the judgment became final and
Only then they became aware of the judgment
when the Sheriff took possession of their
Pajero.
- In his Answer, Atty. Elayda said the case was
referred to him after the complainant and their
former counsel failed to appear in Court. That
the spouses Aranda did not contact him to
prepare for the case. He asked for
were not around (can’t contact them, no
number left). That they did not contact him.
(the spouses admitted that they only tried to
contact him when the writ of execution was
being implemented)
- He violated Canon 17, 18, and 19. He is duty
bound to safeguard the interest of his client
with utmost diligence. He was expected to
monitor the progress of the case and exert all
- While it is true that communication is a shred
responsibility between them, it is the counsel’s
primary duty to inform his clients of the status
of their case. He cannot just wait for the clients
to inquire. It is basic that he should get their
contact details but he didn’t.
- Also: he was at another hearing??
- Atty. Elaysa was suspended for 6 months.

Atty. Briones v Atty. Jimenez

Rural Bank of Calape, Inc (RBCI) Bohol v Atty.
- Atty. Briones file a complaint for disbarment Florido
against Atty. Jimenez for violation of forum- - Complaint for disbarment was filed by the
shopping and Rule 19.01 and Rule 12.08 of members of the Board of Directors of RBCI
CPR.
against Atty. Florido for “acts constitution
- Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the grave coercion and threats when he, as
Estate of Luz Henson. Respondent Atty. counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI,
Jimenez is the counsel of the heirs of the late led his clients in physically taking over the
Luz Henson.
management and operation of the bank
- Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a petition for through force, violence and intimidation.

certiorari assailing the Order appointing the - RCBI alleged that respondent and his clients,
firm of Alba, Romeo, and Co to conduct an through force and intimidation, with the use of
audit at the expense of the late Henson. He armed men, forcibly took over the
then filed a petition for Mandamus alleging that management and the premises of RBCI. That
the respondent Judge therein unlawfully they forcibly evicted the bank manager,
refused to comply with his ministerial duty to destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their
approve their appeal.
own staff to run the bank.

- Atty. Briones contends that the heirs of
Henson, represented by respondent, are guilty
of forum shopping thus petition shall be
dismissed. (found NG, diff cause of action)
Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly
- Also, complainant claims that respondent
violated Rule 19.02 when they file unfounded
criminal complaint against him to obtain
improper advantage in Special Proceeding.
manager but he refused so they asked him to
- In his Comment, respondent contends that
when he assisted the heirs in filing a criminal
case against complainant, he was merely
- Respondent denied RBCI’s allegations. He
explained that he acted in accordance with the
authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-
elected BoD of RBCI. He said he’s merely
effecting a lawful change of management. He
said a termination notice was sent to the bank
step down to ensure smooth transition but he
acted violently. And that they also changed the
vault’s lock.

fulfilling his legal duty to take the necessary - According to the IBP Commissioner,
steps to protect the interest of his clients.
respondent knew that his clients could not just
- The Court found he violated 19.01 as records take over the management without valid court
reveal that before respondent assisted the order as the right to the management of RBCI
heirs in filing the criminal complaint, he sent was still pending before the trial court in civil
demand letters to comply with the order to case.

deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs.
Considering that complainant did not reply,
respondent opted to file said criminal
complaint in behalf of his client for refusal to
obey the lawful order of the Court. (should’ve
filed proper motion to RTC so they could
determine and define the subject residue, filing
of the criminal complaint was premature)
parameters of law and ethics. Lawyer’s duty is
- He claims he merely assisted and exercised
utmost prudence, but fair play demands that
- Lawyers are instruments of justice and peace.
Their duty to protect their client’s interest is
secondary to their obligation to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
While they are obliged to present to their client
every available legal remedy, their fidelity to
their client must always be made within the
not to his client but to the administration of
justice.

respondent should have filed the proper - Atty. Florido was found guilty of violating
motion to attain goal.
Canon 19, and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of CPR.
- Canon 19 of CPR enjoins a lawyer to represent Suspend for 1 year.

his client with zeal. However, the same canon

provides that its performance must be within
the bounds of law (19.01).

- Atty. Jimenez was found guilty and

reprimanded for violation of Rule 19.01 of CPR
(failed to live up to this expectation but no
evidence that he acted in bad faith.