ESTABLISHMENT AND

TERMINATION OF
ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP

CASES
ANGELITA C. ORCINO VS. ATTY.
JOSUE GASPAR
A.C. NO. 3773. SEPT 24, 1997

FACTS:
Orcino filed a complaint against Atty. Gaspar and
prayed that the Court impose disciplinary
sanctions on respondent for abandoning his duties
and for failing to return the legal fees she fully paid
for his services.

A criminal case was filed against several suspects

in the slaying of her husband. Respondent entered
into his duties and religiously attended hearings.
Respondent however failed to attend one hearing
over complainants objections which granted bail
Complainant became belligerent and started
accusing the respondent of jeopardizing the case
by his absence which in his defense it was due to
his not receiving the proper notice of hearing.
Orcino asked for the records of the case saying
she could refer them to another lawyer.
Respondent filed a motion to withdraw as a
counsel which did not bear the consent of the
complainant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent be allowed

to withdraw.
RULING: No.
As found by the CBP, this case arose from simple
misunderstanding. Orcinos words were uttered by
burst of passion. In fact, complainant did not
terminate respondents services. She made this
clear when she refused to sign his motion to
withdraw as counsel.
In addition, a lawyer may withdraw his services
from his client following the instances provided for
under Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which, in this case
does not fall under any of the grounds.
The lawyer has no right to presume that his
petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court.
Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the
lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected
by his client as well as by the court to do what the
interests of his client require. He must still appear
in the date of hearing for the attorney-client does
not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of
record.
MICHAEL RUBY VS. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO AND
ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT
A.C. NO. 10558, FEB 23, 2015

FACTS:
Complainant engaged in the services of the
respondents in connection with a case for
cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation.
Pursuant to the retainer agreement, complainants
agreed to pay several amount of money to the
respondents for different purposes needed for the
proceeding.
Complainant alleged that respondents failed to
update him as to the status of the case and further
claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that
he was their counsel. Atty. Bayot claimed that it
was Atty. Espejo alone who was the counsel and
that he was merely a collaborating counsel

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bayot violated the

Code of Professional Responsibility which would
warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction.
RULING: Yes however Atty Bayot is not entirely
without fault.
Evidence on record, including Atty. Bayots
admissions, points to the conclusion that a lawyer-
client relationship existed between him and the
complainant.
Atty. Bayot undertook to prepare the complaint to
be filed with the RTC and motion to serve
summons through publication,
attended the hearings, and advised the
complainant as to the status of the case without
formally entering his appearance as counsel of
record. He was able to obtain remuneration for his
legal services sans any direct responsibility as to
the progress of the case.
Atty. Bayot is reminded to be more circumspect in
his dealings with his clients.
WILSON CHUA VS. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ
A.C. NO. 9880, NOV. 28, 2016
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that he entered into a
retainership agreement with the respondent for the
latter to handle all his legal problems. For the last
seven years prior, he never attended a single
hearing on any case that he had assigned to the
respondent.
Complainant had written respondent several times
but to no avail which then led to his termination of
the respondents legal services for failure to file
the necessary cases which is the very object of the
said agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has the
right to hold on to a clients documents, even after
the relationship of lawyer-client has been
terminated, due to non-payment of his or her
professional legal fees.

RULING: No.
A lawyers negligence in the discharge of his
obligations arising from the relationship of counsel
and client may cause delay delay in the
administration of justice and prejudice the rights of
a litigant particularly his client.
Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of legal
profession, a lawyers lethargy in carrying out his
duties to his client is both unprofessional and
unethical. Indeed, under their sacred oath, lawyers
pledge not to delay any person for money or
malice.

Neither should the said issue have been the reason

for his failure to return the documents of his client.

Rule 22.02 mandates him to do so: A lawyer who

withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retainer lien, immediately turn all papers and
property to which the client is entited..