CANON 17 Case: ROBERTO P. NONATO vs. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M. FUDOLIN, JR. (A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015)
alibis were unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Respondent is then suspended for 2 years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Canon 17 of the Code. He is also warned that the commission of similar acts will be dealt more severely and is directed to formally Manifest to the Court the date of receipt which shall be the starting point of his suspension.
FACTS: The father of the complainant, complainant, the late Restituto Nonato, was the owner of real property at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The property became a subject of ejectment proceedings before the MTC of Hinigaran. Restituto was represented by Atty. Garcia but was replaced by Atty. Fudolin during the pre-trial stage. The complainant alleged that Restituto paid the respondent his acceptance fees but no formal retainer agreement was executed and did not issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid. The respondent alleged that he received the minimal acceptance fee of P20,000 and appearance fee of P1,000, and that he engaged his services to Restituto because they were relatives. During the pendency of the case he failed to inform Restituto of the status and developments in the case, Restituto could not contact him, and he failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and other documents filed with the court. MTC dismissed Restituto’s Restituto’s complaint. Respondent filed 2 Motions for Reconsideration, both of which denied. He also averred that he was suffering from "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II" and had an undetected stroke and arterial obstruction.
FACTS: Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent to handle a case in which they were defendants seeking the declaration of nullity of title to a parcel of land in Isabela. Respondent received P10,000 acceptance fee from them and handled the trial of their case until RTC decided in their favor. Plaintiffs appeals to the CA to which the respondent requested from the complainants an additional P30,000 for the preparation and submission of their appellee’s brief appellee’s brief in the CA. The CA reversed the decision of of the RTC but the respondent respondent did not inform the complainants. They had trouble communicating with respondent. When they finally reached him, he requested for an additional P7,000 as fee for filing a motion for reconsideration which he did not file. Complainants lost their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of P3,391,600.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent could be held liable for negligence in the performance performance of duty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent may be suspended from the practice of law due to his gross misconduct.
HELD: The Supreme Court adopted the findings of IBP except for the recommended penalty. The respondent has been remiss in the performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel and his
HELD: While complainants and respondent did not appear during the mandatory conferences set by IBP, the IBP found that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 of the
Case: ANGELITO RAMISCAL vs. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO (A.C. No. 10945, February 23, 2016)
Code. The Court agreed with the IBP’s findings IBP’s findings that respondent did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of Ramiscals. The Court believes that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Lawyer’s Oath which contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. He failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of the orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in the administrative investigation of his conduct revealed his irresponsibility irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP.
Case: FELIX E. EDQUIBAL vs. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER, JR. (A.C. No. 5687. February 03, 2005) FACTS: Edquibal charged Atty. Ferrer with professional misconduct misconduct and neglect of duty. Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his sister Delia involving a certain property. His mother obtained favorable judgments in four cases handled by respondent. However, in the civil case, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that the cost involved is P4,000.00. When complainant informed respondent that he does not have enough money, the latter said P2,000.00 would be sufficient for the moment. When complainant failed to hear from respondent, he went to the Court of Appeals to follow-up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appellants brief.
In his comment, respondent denied that he filed an appeal or received P2,000.00. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty. HELD: Yes. Records show that respondent was the counsel for the appellants. There is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Responsibility, which provides: Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Atty. Ferrer is found guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty and is suspended from the practice of law for three months.
Case: MARY ANN T. MATTUS vs. ATTY. ALBERT T. VILLASECA (A.C. No. 7922. October 01, 2013.) FACTS: This is a complaint complaint for for disbarment filed by Mary Ann Ann T. Mattus against Atty. Albert T. Villaseca for gross and inexcusable inexcusable negligence. The complainant complainant and her husband, husband, German, German, were among among the accused in a case for estafa thru falsification of public document. The spouses engaged the services of Villaseca to represent them.
The complainant maintained that she and German were convicted due to Villaseca’s gross and inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as their counsel. The complainant alleged, among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often absent during court hearings but still collected appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the postponement of trial; (3) failed to file a demurrer to evidence; (4) failed to present evidence on behalf of the defense; (5) did not inform her and German of the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and the promulgation of judgment; and (6) erroneously indicated the wrong case number in the notice of appeal. Villaseca refuted the allegations against him. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that Villaseca be suspended for six months from the practice of law. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Villaseca is guilty of negligence. HELD: Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.” The Court stressed that the moment Villaseca agreed to handle the complainant’s case, he became duty-bound to serve his clients with competence and diligence. The Court stated that Villaseca fell short of what is expected of him as an officer of the Court and showed a wanton and utter disregard to his clients’ cause. The Court found him guilty of negligence, in violation, among others, of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for five years.
Case: WILLIAM ONG - GENATO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ESSEX L. SILAPAN, respondent. (A.C. No. 4078, Jul 14, 2003)
FACTS: The lawyer was given a small space within the complainant’s building so he can use it for office space. Eventually, the complainant entrusted several legal matters to the lawyer. Later, the lawyer borrowed some money from the complainant so he can buy a new car, to which the complainant acceded by lending him P200,000.00. The lawyer issued a check in favor of complainant to cover the first six months interest of the loan. He also executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the complainant, but did not surrender the title to the complainant. Later, the lawyer failed to pay the amortization on his car, the financing company sent demand letters to the complainant, hence the complainant encashed the checks issued by the lawyer for payment, but it was dishonored for reason that the account closed. In his answer to the civil action, the lawyer alleged, quoting the decision: “12. That on January 29, 1993, before paying for the next installment on his car on January 30, 1993, defendant Essex L. Silapan asked the complainant to execute a Deed of Sale transferring ownership of the car to him but the latter said that he will only do so after the termination of his criminal case at Branch 138 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, x x x where he (complainant) wanted Essex L. Silapan, his former counsel in that case, to offer bribe money to the members of the review committee of the Department of Justice where a petition for review of the
resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was pending at the time, x x x or, in the event that the said petition for review is denied, he wanted Essex L. Silapan to offer bribe money to the prosecutor assigned at the above-mentioned Court, and even to the presiding Judge, for his eventual acquittal, which defendant Essex L. Silapan all refused to do not only because such acts are immoral and illegal, but also because the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the commission of the crime that was charged of in the above-mentioned case. (emphasis supplied)” Complainant felt aggrieved on the allegations made by the lawyer in his answer, alleging that it is irrelevant to the civil action and violated lawyer-client confidentiality, thus he filed a disbarment case against the lawyer. ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer be made liable for violating the lawyer-client relationship if he alleges or imputes illegal activity on the part of his client. HELD: Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. 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. 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. Be that as it may, respondent’s explanation that it was necessary for him to make the disclosures in his pleadings fails to satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect
his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It was improper for the respondent to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject matter of litigation therein and respondent’s professional competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness. The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
Case: LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO FLORES (A.C. No. 4219, Dec 8, 2003) FACTS: Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992, complainant Schulz engaged in the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a complaint against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for the latter’s failure to deliver the jeep which he sold to Schulz. Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in acting upon his case resulted in his being a defendant rather than a complainant. He also charged the respondent for collecting excessive and unreasonable fees. In support of his charges against the respondent, he pointed out that he was a Municipal Judge of Negros Oriental who was dismissed from service after the Marcos Regime. Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and application of PD No. 1508 which mandates that all disputes between and among residents of the same city or municipality should be brought first under the system of barangay conciliation before recourse to the court can be allowed. Because of respondent’s transgressions, his client was haled to court as part-defendant. Respondent also refused to return petitioner’s money in spite of his meager service.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer is in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Court ruled that that the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads: CANON 17. – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. The Court has time and again emphatically stated that the trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in the lawyer a high standard and an appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every case an attorney accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. To be sure, any member of the legal fraternity worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical manner.
Case: FERDINAND A. SAMSON vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA (A.C. No. 6664, Jul 16, 2013)
FACTS: The case is a disbarment complaint by complainant Ferdinand A. Samson charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era with violation of his trust and confidence of a client by representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client, in a manner that blatantly conflicted his interest.
Respondent was the representative of complainant and his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group, officers of the ICS Exports, Inc., a pyramiding scam. Respondent contended that the attorney-client relationship between him and Samson and his group had terminated upon the compromise settlement between them and Sison and the ICS Corporation, and that his counseling of the latter was an appointment de officio by Branch 102 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City only for purposes of her arraignment. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Supreme Court held respondent guilty. The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client as the client’s confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. A lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client, nor should he disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation. This violates Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which expressly declares that: “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
Case: JOSEFINA CARANZA DE SALDIVAR vs. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, JR. (A.C. No. 7749, Jul 8, 2013) FACTS: The case is an administrative complaint by complainant Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar against respondent Atty.
Ramos SG Cabanes, Jr. for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others.
Case: MARILEN G. SOLIMAN vs. ATTY. DITAS LERIOSAMBOY (A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015)
Respondent was complainant’s representative in an unlawful detainer case wherein due to the latter’s failure to attend a preliminary conference, said case resulted in immediate submission for decision and the eventual loss of the complainant’s cause to which respondent never remedied. Furthermore, respondent failed to timely turn-over to complainant the papers and documents after losing said case, barred off her remedies resulting her loss.
FACTS: Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in connection with a partition case which was no longer instituted but instead Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the said property from the co-owners to the individual owners. Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles to the property because of the failure of the other co-owners to submit certain documents. Later, the respondent told Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a fee of P50,000.00. Soliman deposited the same to Atty. Amboy’s bank account. Afterwards, Atty. Amboy informed Soliman that the certificates of title to the property were then only awaiting the signature of the authorized officer. However, Atty. Amboy failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-owners to the subject property. Atty. Amboy’s secretary informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for an additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title. Soliman then refused to further pay and then asked the updates on the release of the said title but respondent did not answer. Thereafter, Soliman and Atty. Amboy’s secretary went to the office of a certain Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila. Soliman inquired to Atty. Marasigan if he received the P50,000.00 as payment for the release of the said titles but the latter denied having received any amount to facilitate the release of the titles and claimed that the reason why the same could not be processed was that Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents. Upon demand to release the documents and the money given, respondent refused.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Supreme Court held respondent guilty of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others, which holds that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Respondent failed to justify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference hearing; he could have exercised ordinary diligence by inquiring whether said tentative hearing would push through. Moreover, the fact that respondent had an important commitment during that day hardly exculpates him from his omission since the prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf. Equally compelling is the fact that respondent purposely failed to assail the heirs’ appeal before the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violation of the Code of Pr ofessional Responsibility HELD: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Canon 17). Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title. The respondent was found GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years ORDERED to return the entire amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal interest.
Case: ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO (A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011) FACTS: Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991, they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the United States of America (USA). Sometime in 1993, complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair. When confronted, his wife initially denied any
amorous involvement with respondent but eventually broke down and confessed to their love affair that began in 1993. Respondent likewise admitted the relationship. Subsequently, at a meeting initiated by respondent and another meeting was held, in the presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness. Complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon. ISSUE: Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the Affidavit is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the present disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct HELD: NO. Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. Respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO was found GUILTY of Gross Immorality and was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
CANON 18 Case: TRINIDAD H. CAMARA vs. ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY REYES (A.C. No. 6121, July 31, 2009) FACTS: Complainant engaged in the services of respondent to handle her case. Respondent received P50,000 as partial acceptance fee evidenced by a receipt placed on his calling card but no steps were taken to protect the complainant’s interest. Complainant asked the return of the amount given to respondent for repairing her house. Respondent promised to take charge of the repairs but he failed to fulfill his promise. ISSUES: Whether or not disbarment or suspension proceeding shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of resolution between complainant and respondent. Whether or not the complainant violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code. HELD: Respondent prayed that the case be closed because the matter has been resolved. However, IBP and the Court stated that as general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute unless the Court motu proprio determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
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, Rule 18.03 which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from practice of law for 6 months. Case: MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL vs. ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA (A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014) FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent, the managing partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract of Legal Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000 for the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition was filed. Complainant then filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand. Respondent explained that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file the petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured that he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's Affidavit of Desistance which averred that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already refunded the amount he paid. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his breached duty to serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
HELD: On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Case: REX POLINAR DAGOHOY vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN (A.C. No. 7944. June 03, 2013.) FACTS: Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy, his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and convicted of theft. According to the complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for San Juan’s failure to file the appellant’s brief. He further alleged that San Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against the CA’s order of dismissal. The complainant also alleged that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its dismissal. In his comment, Atty. San Juan denied the charge. He imputed fault on Tomas for failing to furnish him a copy of the
case records to enable him to prepare and file the appellant’ s brief. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. San Juan is guilty of gross negligence. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan’s task as the lawyer. Second, Atty. San Juan knows that filing an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period is critical. Third, the records also disclose Atty. San Juan’s lack of candor in dealing with his client. The Court found Atty. San Juan in violation of Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide: CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for a period of one year and to deny his motion to be allowed to return to the practice of law.
Case: JOHNNY M. PESTO vs. MARCELITO M. MILLO (ADM. CASE NO. 9612. March 13, 2013.) FACTS: Johnny Pesto, a Canadian national, charged Atty. Marcelito M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and incompetence and negligence in the performance of his duty as a lawyer. Johnny averred that his wife Abella retained the services of Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land to her name, and the adoption of her niece; that among other transgressions, Atty. Millo repeatedly gave them false information to explain his inability to complete the transfer of title; that Atty. Millo likewise made them believe that the tax for the property had been paid, but they found out that he had not yet paid the tax. Likewise, Johnny blamed Atty. Millo for letting the adoption case be considered closed due to two years of inaction. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Millo violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Millo’s acceptance of the sums of money from Johnny and Abella to enable him to attend to the transfer of title and to complete the adoption case initiated the lawyer-client relationship between them. From that moment on, Atty. Millo assumed the duty to render professional service to them as his clients. Yet, he failed to discharge his duty. He was inefficient and negligent in going about what the professional service he had assumed required him to do. The Supreme Court further explained that Atty. Millo had the obligation to serve his clients with competence and diligence. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit:
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. The Court held Atty. Millo guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six months. Case: SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARNEL CAPISTRANO, respondent. (A.C. No. 6903, Apr 16 2012) FACTS: An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant charging the respondent of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. On January 2005, Suzette and her friend, Ricky S. Tuparan, engaged in the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of P140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of P30,000.00, appearance fee of P2,500.00 per hearing and P2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare an additional amount as payment for the filing fee, summons, fiscals, psychiatrist and commissioner. Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00. For every payment made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet been filed. Suzette demanded the refund of the total amount of P78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano offered to return P63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparan case, to which she agreed.
However, Atty. Capistrano only returned P5,000.00, then refused to communicate with her. In the Report and Recommendation dated April 2007, the IBP-CBD found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients’ interests by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads: CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. xxx RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not
justify neglect in handling one’s case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle. To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty.
Case: STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA BRUNET vs. ATTY. RONALD GUAREN (A.C. No. 10164, Mar 10 2014) FACTS: The Brunet spouses filed a complaint against Atty. Guaren. According to them, they engaged his services for the titling of a residential lot they acquired, to which Atty. Guaren asked for P10,000.00 as expenses for titling. He also asked for an advance payment of P1,000.00 and took all the pertinent documents for the titling of the lot. Respondent again asked for advance payment of P6,000.00 which they gave on March 1997, but from 1997 to 2001, despite several reminders, Atty. Ronald failed to complete his undertaking and merely alleged that the titling was in progress. Thus, they demanded the refund of the amount they gave, to which Ronald agreed, provided that P5,000.00 be deducted as his professional fee. Despite the existence of their lawyer-client relationship, Respondent made a special appearance against them in a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court of Oslob, Cebu.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren liable for accepting the titling of complainants’ lot and receiving payments but failed to perform his obligation after 5 long years, as well as for appearing in a case against the complainants without securing their written consent. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Guaren is in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for being incompetent and negligent. HELD: Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
Case: JOSE ALLAN TAN vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE (A.C. No. 7766, Aug 5, 2014)
FACTS: The case is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Jose Allan Tan against respondent Pedro S. Diamante, charging him of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath for failing to keep his client informed of the status of the case, among others. Complainant engaged in the services of respondent in a case for partition of property against the heirs of his illegitimate father, the late Luis Tan. Respondent, though notified of the dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence quite early, failed to notify complainant who had only discovered such when he visited the former’s office who thereafter asked him for payment of appeal fees and other costs. Later on, the appeal was dismissed after having been filed beyond the reglementary period provided by law, which the respondent did not disclose to complainant and, instead, showed complainant an Order purportedly issued by the RTC directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Supreme Court denied the petition. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important information he may have acquired affecting his client’s case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. In the case at bar,
clearly, respondent failed to exercise the required skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment.
Case: REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO (A.C. No. 10537, Feb 3, 2015) FACTS: The case is a Petition for Review filed by respondent Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo assailing the Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines affirming her violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others. Respondent was hired by complainant Reynaldo Remirez as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title when the former contacted him as per a referral from a friend of his sister, offering her legal services on the condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead of attorney’s fees plus Php1,000 per court appearance. After several follow ups, respondent informed complainant that his appeal had been denied to his failure to establish his filiation with his alleged father, the basis of his claim. Respondent made it appear that the case was dismissed on the merits when, in truth, she failed to file the Appellant’s Brief on time. This was discovered by complainant after personally going to the Court of Appeals. Respondent contends that the she had only agreed to take on the case after complainant’s mother begged her to do so, and had taken it for free save for the Php1,000 travel expense per hearing, claimed that she had candidly informed complainant and his mother that they only had 50% chance of winning the case, and denied the contingent fee of 30% of the land value of the said land. Furthermore, her defense on her failure to immediately inform complainant of the unfavorable Decision of the Court of Appeals was that her eight year-old
daughter had played with her phone and accidentally erased all her contacts. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Supreme Court denied the petition. The lack of communication and coordination between respondent and complainant was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. Respondent failed to discharge her duties with the requisite diligence as provided by the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse and there was no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent had failed to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant’s interest, which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession.
Case: EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR. (A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015) FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by complainant Eduardo A. Maglente, against respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. praying that the latter be directed to return the amount of P48,000.00 that he received from the former. Complainant, as President of “Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated”(Samahan), alleged that he engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in order to determine the true owner of the land being occupied by the members of Samahan. In connection therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees for the action to be instituted, as evidenced by a written acknowledgment executed by respondent himself. Despite the payment, respondent failed to file an action in court. When confronted, respondent explained that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the filing fees in court. Thus, complainant asked for the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent the same and even demanded more money. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should administratively liable for the acts complained of.
be
held
HELD: Yes. A lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads: CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that complainant engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in court, and in connection therewith, gave the amount of P48,000.00 to answer for the filing fees. Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking and offered the flimsy excuse that the money he received from complainant was not enough to fully pay the filing fees. Verily, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Case: SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA vs. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON (A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015) FACTS: Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of titling and/or reconstituting the titles to the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta. In connection therewith, she claimed to have given the aggregate amount of P112,499.55 to respondent. However, respondent failed to update complainant regarding the status of the matters referred to him. Thus, complainant terminated her engagement with respondent and demanded for the return of P112,499.55, but to no avail. In his defense, the respondent asserts that he only received P55,000.00 and that the rest of the money was received by a certain Rowena Delos Reyes-Kelly who was not an employee of his law firm. Furthermore, he averred that he had already offered to return the amount of P30,000.00 to
complainant, claiming that he already earned the fees for legal services in the amount of P20,000.00 for having studied the matter entrusted to him and drafted the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition (Deed) that underwent several revisions. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should administratively liable for the acts complained of.
be
CANON 19 Case: ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES vs. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ (A.C. No. 6691. April 27, 2007.)
held
HELD: Yes. It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR which reads: CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In view of respondent’s old age, his condition of having undergone a triple heart bypass surgery, and considering that this is his first offense, the Court concurs with the recommendations of the IBP. WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month and is ORDERED to return to complainant the amount of P55,000.00 he received.
FACTS: Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson while Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, herein respondent, is the counsel for the Heirs of Henson. After the probate proceedings, the RTC issued an order directing Briones to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. Atty Briones refused to deliver the estate. Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against Atty. Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order. Atty. Briones filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum shopping and violation of Canon 19, Rule 19.01 and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him. Atty. Jimenez also contends that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jimenez violated Canons 19 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: The Supreme Court agrees with the Office of the Bar Confidant that Atty. Jimenez is not guilty of forum shopping. Records show that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 70349 assailing the Order of March 12, 2002
appointing the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as auditor; and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71488 assailing the Order of April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to complainant. It is evident that there is identity of parties but different causes of action and reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of forum shopping On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court finds that there is sufficient ground in support of complainant’s claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. Atty. Jimenez should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC for the execution of the subject Order, instead of immediately resorting to the filing of a criminal complaint against the complainant. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently premature. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyer’s performance of his duties towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. WHEREFORE, Atty. Jimenez is found GUILTY and REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Case: ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA vs. ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO (A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010) FACTS: Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the allegations that respondent: promoted or sued a groundless, false or unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same; disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for law and the legal profession; did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleague and engaged in harassing tactics against opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law; and ruined and damaged not only the Gen. Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the entire water-consuming community as well. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred from the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time.
Case: VALERIANA U. DALISAY vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR. (A.C. No. 5655. January 23, 2006)
FACTS: Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondent’s services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees, respondent never rendered legal services. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money, but respondent refused. The Supreme Court in its Decision, found respondent guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six months. Upon learning of the Court’s decision, respondent verified the status of Civil Case No. 00-044. He learned of the trial court’s Decision holding that the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official records. Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against complainant alleging that complainant offered tampered evidence. The respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court Decision and argued that complainant did not engage his services as counsel, and that complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases against her. ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted. HELD: The respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court explained that once a lawyer accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is established. Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence,
it will not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent. Consistent with the mandate of Canon 19 that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides that a lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and asked her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her. Case: MARIA CRISTINA PITCHER vs. ATTY. RUSTICO B. GAGATE (A.C. No. 9532. October 8, 2013.) FACTS: Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late David B. Pitcher who owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband, complainant engaged the services of respondent. Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss the settlement of David’s interest in the company. Prior to another scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the premises. Bantegui expressed disappointment over these actions then asked them to leave and refused to give them a duplicate key. Respondent caused the change in the lock of the office door. This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint for grave coercion. The Prosecutor’s Office issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge complainant and respondent. Respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the
motions in court. However, respondent stopped communicating with complainant. Failing to reach respondent, complainant filed this administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. ISSUE: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s cause since he: first, failed to represent her competently; and, second, abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending. Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states: CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 – 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. The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.
Case: DOLORES BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN MACASA (A.C. No. 7815, Jul 23 2009) FACTS: Complainant availed respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son,with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorney’s Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments. Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 from complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. However, she later found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant then demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but the latter ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Hence, the disbarment case Complainant availed respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son, with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorney’s Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments. Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 from complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. However, she later found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant then demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but the latter ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Hence, the disbarment case Complainant availed respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her
son, with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorney’s Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments. On November 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services for the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of RA 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00 The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent. A few days after, she gave him an additional P10,000.00. She paid the P5,000.00 balance the day after. On all occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt. A few days after, respondent received P18,000.00 from complainant for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000.00 on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’ s defense. In an order dated July 2005, the CBD required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file an answer dated August 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint for being "baseless, groundless and malicious" without offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be given until September 2005 to submit his answer. Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second and third extensions of time praying to be given until November 2005 to submit his answer. He never did.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macasa did acts in violation of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Court ruled that that the respondent violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer must represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself, particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort, to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied. In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainant’s son and receiving his attorney’s fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainant’s son was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant’s son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latter’s constitutional right to bail.
CASE: Jon De Ysasi III vs. National Labor Relations Commission (4th Division), Cebu City, and Jon De Ysasi
CASE: Spouses Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel Elayda (A.C. No. 7907, October 26, 2013)
FACTS: Jon De Ysasi III is the son of Jon De Ysasi. The elder Ysasi is the owner of a hacienda in Negros Occidental while De Ysasi III is employed by his father as the farm administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent a surgery and causing him to be absent from work. He was confined and while he was being treated from his infections he was terminated by his father without due process. The younger De Ysasi filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission. However, His father contended that his son’s absence has equated to abandonment of his work. ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi abandoned his work. HELD: No. The court held that for abandonment to be constituted, there must be a) failure to report for work without a valid and justifiable reason, and b) a clear intention to sever the employee-employer relationship through overt acts. No such requisites are present in this case. The court was also disappointed by the conduct of both counsels of the parties stating that Canon 19, which provides that a lawyer must handle his case with zeal, must be read with Canon 1, which provides that a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. It is just as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate blood ties between their clients. The court explicitly reiterates that the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but also to avoid it by advising settlements.
FACTS: Petitioner spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda hired respondent Attorney Emmanuel Elayda to represent them in a civil case in 2006. In July of said year, petitioners to their surprise received an unfavorable decision issued by the court, resulting to the forfeiture of their car. The petitioners claim that respondent Attorney did not inform them of the schedule of hearing and that no order of judgment was given to them despite having receipt of the order dated February 2006. Moreover, they allege that they have been deprived of their right to present evidence and their right to appeal to said case because of the gross negligence of their counsel. Respondent Atty. Elayda contended that it was the petitioner’s lack of participation and cooperation that lead to the adverse decision of the court and that they were the ones who did not appear in court given that Atty. Elayda was just in another courtroom and asked the stenographer to notify him if the spouses have arrived. Spouses have never inquired as to the status of their case. ISSUE: Whether or not Attorney Elayda should be given a disciplinary action. HELD: Yes. While it is true that communication is a shared responsibility in the client and lawyer relation, it is the prime duty of the counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot just wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the status of the case, for close communication is vital for its preparation. Also, a lawyer’s attendance must not be
dependent to the attendance of his clients. Thus, his excuse that he did not appear because the spouses did not appear cannot be countenanced. Among others, Atty. Elayda has violated Canon 19 of the Code of professional Responsibility which provides: “A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.” A 6 month suspension was recommended by the IBP Board of Governors and was subsequently adopted by the court. Case: ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO (A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002)
FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. While a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. In this case, he has not exercised good faith because he tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. When complainant did not heed his warning, the respondent maliciously filed a string of "manufactured" criminal and administrative cases which did not have a bearing to the cause of his client against the former to blackmail him or extort money from him, in violation of Canon 19. The respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the complainant so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The complainant branded the respondent's tactics as "highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical, constituting malpractice of law and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer. Respondent was directed to submit his comment on the complaint lodged against him. He did not file any. It appears that the respondent did not appear before the investigating officer, to answer the charges against him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Unto is guilty of a conduct unbecoming of a lawyer HELD: Considering the facts of the case, the Court find that respondent has not exercised the good faith required of a lawyer in handling the legal affairs of his client, The respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the complainant just so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding and he shall not do any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. The respondent chose not to participate in the proceedings against him. His nonchalance does not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of respect towards the public officers. The recommended penalty for the unprofessional conduct of the respondent was one (1) month suspension or reprimand. The Court believes that the same is too light vis-avis the misconduct of the respondent. Respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO is declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Case: RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO (A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010) FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido, for "acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as
counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in physically taking over the management and operation of the bank through force, violence and intimidation.". According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. Respondent denied RBCI’s allegation and explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply and to ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: The Court affirmed IBP Board of Governors' resolution. It is the lawyer's 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. 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. 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. His conduct ought to and
must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. The Court finds respondent GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the Decision.
