c



*Adarne vs Aldaba¬respondent filed a disbarment case on

the ground of gross negligence against Atty. Aldaba
because, as accdg to the petitioner, the lawyer only
appeared for the special appearance and from then on,
left him hanging. But the SC held that the petitioner should
be the one to be blamed for having engaged the services
of several lawyers to handle his case w/o formally
withdrawing the authority he had given to them to appear
in his behalf as to place the responsibility upon the
respondent lawyer in this case. ñ


ñ 
ñ




ñ ñ
 

ñ
 ñ


 
ñ ññ
 ñ 

ñ
ññ ññ


ñ 
 
ñ
ñ


ñ
ñ ñ
ñ 

ññÔt was neither gross negligence nor omission to
have entertained such belief. An attorney is not bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having reference to the character
of the business he undertakes to do. Prone to err like any
other human being, he is not answerable for every error or
mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly
and in good faith to the best of his skill and knowledge.
(canon 18)

*Reyes vs Vitan¬ The petitioner filed a disbarment case

against Atty Vitan on the ground of gross negligence.
Sometime in June 2001, complainant hired the services of
respondent for the purpose of filing the appropriate charge
against his sister-in-law and the latter·s niece in a cvil case
that both women refused to abide with the decision of
Judge Nabong ordering the partition of the properties left
by complainant·s brother Damaso Reyes and that
respondent, after receiving the amount of 17k did not take
any action on complainant·s case. The act of receiving
money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling
complainant's case and subsequently failing to render such
services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence. More
specifically, Rule 18.03. Thus respondent was ordered by the
court to be suspended from the practice of law for 6 mos
and to return to the complainant w/in five days from notice
the sum of 17k with interest of 12% per annum from the date
of promulgation of the SC·s decision until the full amount
shall have been paid.

c




 
¬The Court accordingly finds that
respondent has not exercised the good faith and diligence
required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their
clients. Ôf complainants did have the alleged monetary
obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily
confiscating their certificates of title since there is no
showing in the records that the same were given as
collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there
any intimation that there is a court order authorizing him to
take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Canon
19, Rule 19.01 ordains 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 charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not
in fact transgressed the same. SUSPENDED.

c



*c ¬The issue in this case is whether or not an

attorney who was engaged on a contingent fee basis may,
in order to collect his fees, prosecute an appeal despite his
client's refusal to appeal the decision of the trial court. The
private complainant, Ms Del Rosario, sent him a letter stating
that she was terminating his services as her counsel due to
conflicting interest. Because the respondent, being the
brother-in-law of the lessee of the subject property, sought
to be ejected by the private complainant and the other
parties in the probate proceeding. The petitioner alleged
that he is a right to accept for his client Del Rosario to the
extent if 35% thereof the devise in her favor to protect his


ñ

contingency attorney·s fees. Œ

ññ
ñ
    

ñ

ññ 
Œ ñ
  ñ
ñ
ñ

ñ
ñ
!
ññ

ñ
ñ"
"Œ


ñ
 

ñ
ñ


ñ
ñ

 ñ
ñ
   # 
$
ñ

ñññ
#


ñ
 #
ññ
ñ

ñ
ññ

%
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ 


*
c 

c




  
¬ This Complaint for disbarment was filed
by Federico C. Suntay against his nephew, Atty. Rafael G.
Suntay, alleging that respondent was his legal counsel,
adviser and confidant who was privy to all his legal,
financial and political affairs from 1956 to 1964. However,
since they parted ways because of politics and
respondent's overweening political ambitions in 1964,
respondent had been filing complaints and cases against
complainant, making use of confidential information gained
while their attorney-client relationship existed, and otherwise
harassing him at every turn.