Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs Atty. Eduardo De Vera Legal Ethics – Canon 21 – Client’s Confidence and Secrets Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado. De Vera garnished the bank account of the opposing party but he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead he claimed that he used the same to pay off the judge and what’s left was for his attorney’s fees. Mercado filed an administrative complaint and eventually De Vera was suspended from the practice of law for one year. In obvious retaliation, he filed various complaints against Mercado and her family, the IBP officers who suspended and several others. He attempted to re-open the case of her client in an attempt to collect more attorney’s fees. He also instigated the opposing party in the case he won for Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The complaints were dismissed but he re-filed them nonetheless. ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera should be disbarred. HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with ill-motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney. Further, De Vera is in violation of Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In filing cases against Mercado, De Vera used matters and information acquired by him when he was still the counsel for Mercado. A lawyer owes loyalty and fidelity to his client even if the lawyer-client relationship has already terminated. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Urban Bank, Inc. vs Atty. Magdaleno Peña Problem Areas in Legal Ethics – Unconscionable Attorney’s Fees – Quantum Meruit In 1994, Isabel Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI) sold a parcel of land to Urban Bank, Inc. (UBI). The land was sold for P240 million. As the land was occupied by unauthorized sub-tenants, ISCI’s lawyer, Atty. Magdaleno Peña had to negotiate with them for them to relocate. But the said occupants, knowing that the land was already transferred to UBI, refused to recognize Peña. ISCI then communicated with UBI so that the latter may authorize Peña to negotiate with the tenants. Peña had to barricade himself inside the property to keep the tenants out who were forcing their way in especially so that the local cops are now sympathetic to them. Peña then had a phone conversation with Teodoro Borlongan, president of UBI, where Peña explained to him the situation. In said conversation, Peña asked authorization from Borlongan to negotiate with the tenants. Peña also asked that he be paid 10% of the purchase price or (P24 million) for his efforts. Borlongan agreed over the phone on the condition that Peña should be able to settle with the tenants otherwise he forfeits said 10% fee. Peña also asked that said authorization be put into writing. The authorization was put into writing but no mention was made as regards the 10% fee, (in short, that part was not written in the written authorization released by UBI). Peña was able to settle and relocate the tenants. After everything was settled and the property is now formally under the possession of UBI, Peña began sending demands to UBI for the latter to pay him the P24 million fee agreed upon, plus his expenses for the relocation of the tenants and the hiring of security guards or an additional P3 million. But UBI refused to make payment hence Peña filed a complaint for recovery against UBI. The trial court ruled in favor of Peña as it found there indeed was a contract of agency created between and UBI and that Peña is
entitled to the 10% fee plus the expenses he incurred including litigation expenses. In sum, the trial court awarded him P28 million. The Court of Appeals however reversed the order of the trial court. It ruled that no agency was formed but for his legal services, Peña is entitled to payment but applying the principle of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, Peña should only be paid P3 million. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Magdaleno Peña is entitled to receive the P28 million. HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that said amount is unconscionable. Peña is entitled to payment for compensation for services rendered as agent of Urban Bank, but on the basis of the principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. In the first place, other than the self-serving testimony of Peña, there was no other evidence presented to support his claim that Borlongan agreed to pay him that 10% over the phone. The written authorization later issued merely confirms the power granted him to negotiate with the tenants. The written authorization proved the existence of agency but not the existence of any agreement as to how much Peña should be paid. Absent any such agreement, the principle of quantum meruit should be applied. In this case, Peña is entitled to receive what he merit for his services, or as much as he has earned. In dealing with the tenants, Peña didn’t have to perform any extraordinary acts or legal maneuvering. Hence, he is entitled to receive P1.5 million for his legal services. He is also entitled to reimbursement for his expenses in securing the property, to wit, P1.5 million for the security guards he had to hire and another P1.5 million for settling and relocating the 23 tenants. Total of P4.5 million. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Petition for Leave to Reclaim Practice of Law of Benjamin Dacanay 40 SCRA 424 – Civil Law – Private International Law – Nationality Theory – Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical help. In order for him to take advantage of Canada’s free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the Philippines and he now intends to resume his practice of law. ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his practice of law. HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in the Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006,
his membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have never been terminated. But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his practice of law right after reacquisition? No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he can resume his practice of law, to wit: (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; (b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.
Marjorie f. Samaniego,complainant Vs.Atty. Andrew v. Ferrer, respondent Facts: early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client andthe latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship becameintimate.subsequently,they cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about ayear from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born.the affair ended in 2000 and sincethen,respondent failed to supprot his daughter.ms. Samaniegao,filed a complaint againstthe respondent before the ibp commission on bar discipline. A member of the bar? Issue: is the act of the respondent,constitute lacked of degree of morality required of themember of the bar?
Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoralconduct subject to disciplinary actions.rule 101 of the code of professional conduct aswell as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession,thusthe court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent besuspended for 6 months in the practice of law
Espinosa v. Atty. Omana, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011 FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omana’s legal advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and notarized the contract. ISSUE: W/N Omaña violated the CPR in notartizing the “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” W/N the Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid.
HELD: SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.
Elpidio Tiong vs Atty. George Florendo Problem Areas in Legal Ethics – Pardon Does Not Bar Sanction Against an Erring Lawyer – Moral Depravity – Grossly Immoral Conduct Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times
away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo. Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already pardoned. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct. HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’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. He violated the trust reposed upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that their affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.
Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.Legal Ethicsvillarama doctrinesThursday, December 15, 2011
Attorney; grave misconduct. Respondent attorney was found to have violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her through the use of documents and false representations and by taking advantage of her education and complainant’s ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondent’s misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and that complainant could register the “open” deed of sale if respondent fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not only complainant’s perception of the legal profession but the public’s perception as well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined. Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba. A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.
SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITA B. RAFOLS vs. ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR[A.C. No. 4973. March 15, 2010.] FACTS:The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General SantosCity, wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge Dizon, Jr.The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as acceptance fee. On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The respondent andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. Therespondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their success up tothe Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him. ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct HELD: YES
Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent wasaware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report andRecommendation, viz.:. . . Being the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court issomething beyond the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact in arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainantslitigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case which waspending before the sala of Judge Dizon. The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of ourlegal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very highstandard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
A.C.
No.
4955
September
12,
2011
Antonio
Conlu
–
Complainant vs. Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr., - Respondent FACTS This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for damagesagainst Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on grounds of gross negligencefiled by Antonio Conlu, his client in a case for Quieting of Title. Thecomplainant secured the services of Atty. Aredonia to representhim. The Court rendered a Decision against the complainant. TheDecision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, however the samewas dismissed for failure of Atty. Aredonia to file the appeallant’sbrief. The dismissal
of
the
appeal
learned
only
after
the
wife
of
thecomplainant verified the status of the appeal. Atty. Aredonia seekreconsideration on the resolution alleging that he did not receivedcopy of the resolution, but the same was denied because of thelate filing of the motion. The private complainant personally filedanother motion for reconsideration but the same was denied forthe reason that the belated filing of Atty. Aredonia’s first motion forreconsideration theSupreme
binds
Court
but
Antonio. said
Antonio
appeal
then,
was
appealed
denied
by
to the
Court.Thereafter, Antonio filed the disbarment case before the Office
of the
Bar
Confidant
who
rendered
a
Report/Recommendation to theCourt. The Court in its resolution imposed among others the filingof an administrative case against Atty. Aredonia before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline. ISSUES
:1. Whether or not there is gross negligence on the part of Atty.Aredonia.2. Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.3. Whether or not complainant is entitled for damages. RULING :On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a brief resulting
to
the
dismissal
of
an
appeal
constitutes
inexcusablenegligence. This default and his failureto inform his client of thestatus of the casetranslates to a violation of Canon 18 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility, which states,
MANUEL C. YUHICO v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ A.C. No. 8391, 23 November 2010, EN BANC (Per Curiam) Atty. Fred Gutierrez asked for a cash loan of P30,000.00 from Manuel Yuhico. Gutierrez thenclaimed that he needed money to pay for the medical expenses of his mother who was seriously ill. Yuhicoimmediately handed the money. In turn, Gutierrez
promised
to
pay
the
loan
very
soon,
since
he
wasexpecting to collect his attorney's fees from a Japanese client.Gutierrez again asked Yuhico for a loan, in the amount of P60,000.00, allegedly to pay the medicalexpenses of his wife who was also hospitalized. Again, Yuhico readily issued to Gutierrez a check amountingto P60,000.00. Again, Gutierrez promised to pay his two loans totalling to P90,000.00 "within a shorttime." Yuhico asked Gutierrez to pay his loans. Gutierrez failed to pay and in a text message he asked foran extension of time to pay. Later, thru a text
message,
Gutierrez
attempted
Yuhicoagain.
Gutierrez
claimed
P70,000.00
to
the
pay
fees
to
that
borrow his
required
money
daughter to
from
needed
take
the
licensureexamination in the U.S. Medical Board. Gutierrez assured
him that he will pay all his debts within a month.However, this time, Yuhico refused to lend Gutierrez any amount of money. Instead,
he
demanded
fromGutierrez
the
payment
of
his
debts.Gutierrez then sent another text message to Yuhico and requested him to give him another week topay his debts. Gutierrez failed to make the payment. Yuhico's counsel sent a demand letter to Gutierrez topay his debts, but to no avail. Thus, Yuhico filed the instant complaint against Gutierrez before theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).On January 12, 2006, the IBP-CBD directed Gutierrez to submit his Answer on the
complaintagainst
him. In a Resolution,
IBP-CBD found
Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and ordered himto return the amount of P90,000.00 to Yuhico, with interest until full payment. ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and likewise guilty of grossmisconduct HELD:Lawyers must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may besanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but alsoa high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence inthe judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conductthemselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.In the instant case, there is no question as to Gutierrez's guilt. His admission of the loan hecontracted and his failure to pay the same leaves no room for interpretation. Neither can he justify his act of non-payment of debt
by his dire financial condition. Gutierrez should not have contracted loans which are beyond his financial capacity to pay.Likewise, it cannot be overlooked Gutierrez's propensity of employing deceit andmisrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of paying them. Records show Gutierrez's pattern of habitually making promises of paying his debts, yet repeatedly failing to deliver. Theseries of text messages he sent to Yuhico promising
to
pay
his
loans,
while
simultaneously
giving
excuses without actually making good of his promises, is clearly reprehensible. Undoubtedly, his acts demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and asofficers of the court.Supreme Court also noted that in
