Legarda v.

CA (1992)
F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for specifc performance. Atty. Coronel !er
co"nsel failed to fle an answer wit!in t!e period and Legarda was t!"s declared in
defa"lt. #!e lower co"rt rendered a decision against Legarda. Coronel failed to pose an
appeal wit!in t!e period. #!"s t!e decision $ecame fnal. #!e %C s"spended Atty. Coronel
for si& mont!s.
': Coronel is g"ilty of gross negligence for violating Canon 1( and r"le 1(.)* partic"larly. +y
neglecting to fle t!e answer to t!e complaint against petitioner !e set o, t!e
events w!ic! res"lted in t!e deprivation of petitioner-s rig!ts over !er !o"se and lot. ./t
s!o"ld $e remem$ered t!at t!e moment t!e lawyer ta0es a client-s ca"se !e covenants
t!at !e will e&ert all e,ort for its prosec"tion "ntil its fnal concl"sion. A lawyer w!o fails to
e&ercise d"e diligence or a$andons !is client-s ca"se ma0es !im "nwort!y of t!e tr"st
reposed on !im $y t!e latter.1
L23A45A v CA
6ma!a$a di 0o na sinama mga dissenting. #alo naman sila e!

Facts:
7ew Cat!ay 'o"se /nc. (Cat!ay) and 8ictoria Legarda entered into a lease
agreement for a property in 9C owned $y Legarda.
For some reason Legarda ref"sed to sign t!e contract. Cat!ay made a deposit and
downpayment of rentals t!en fled for specifc performance.
Legarda-s co"nsel 5ean Antonio Coronel re:"ested a 1);day e&tension to fle an
answer w!ic! was granted. +"t 5ean Coronel failed to fle an answer wit!in t!at
period.
Cat!ay presented evidence e& parte. Cat!ay won t!e case (<atay si Legarda). %ervice
of decision was made on 5ean Coronel $"t !e still did not do anyt!ing.
#!e 9C property was t!en levied and a"ctioned o, to pay for t!e ="dgment de$t.
Cat!ay-s manager Ca$rera was t!e !ig!est $idder in t!e a"ction. Legarda did not
redeem t!e property wit!in t!e 1 year period.
<a!it natalo na sila da!il walang ginagawa si 5ean (!indi nga niya sina$i!an si
Legarda 0"ng ano na nangyari sa 0aso nila na wala na y"ng l"pa) Legarda still did
not lose fait! in !er co"nsel.
5ean Coronel t!en fled a petition for ann"lment of ="dgment. >etition was denied. 7o
motion for reconsideration or appeal was made on t!e order of denial (i$ang 0lase 0a
dean?)
%o Legarda !ired a new lawyer. 7ew lawyer as0ed for ann"lment of ="dgment "pon
t!e gro"nd t!at t!e old lawyer was negligent in !is d"ties. #!e petition was granted
and t!e sale of t!e 9C property to $e set aside.
#!e %C said t!at t!ere was "n="st enric!ment on t!e part of Cat!ay $eca"se of t!e
rec0less ine&c"sa$le and gross negligence of 5ean Coronel.
'ence t!is motion for reconsideration of %C decision.
/ss"e:
@A7 Legarda can $e $o"nd $y t!e gross negligence of !er co"nsel
'eld:
Bes. Criginal decision is reinstated (LegardaDloser)
As long as a party was given t!e opport"nity to defend !er interests in d"e co"rse
s!e cannot $e said to !ave $een denied d"e process of law.
/f indeed Legarda is innocent t!en all t!e more t!at Cat!ay is innocent. +etween two
innocent parties t!e one w!o made it possi$le for t!e wrong to $e done s!o"ld $e
t!e one to $ear t!e res"lting loss.
Legarda mis="dged and !ired t!e services of 5ean Coronel w!o in t!e end sort of
a$andoned !er case.
5ecision was res ipso fnal d"e to fail"re to appeal t!e decision.
4EL2 1(.)FA.C. 7o. (2G2 H"ly 21 2))9
7A#/8/5A5 EB Complainant
vs.
A##B. +4AEL/C 43 #A7%/7%/7 4espondent.
Complainant engaged t!e services of respondent to defend !im in an e=ectment case
w!erein !e was t!e defendant. 4espondent was a$le to fle on time an Answer to t!e
complaint !owever w!en re:"ired to fle a >osition >aper !e failed to fle one for and on
$e!alf of t!e complainant. 2vent"ally a decision was rendered $y t!e Ie#C against t!e
complainant. #!e case was elevated to t!e 4egional #rial Co"rt $"t t!e same was dismissed
solely $eca"se of t!e fail"re of respondent to fle a memorand"m on appeal. Iotion for
reconsideration was li0ewise denied for !aving $een fled o"t of time.
4ealiJing t!at s!e lost !er case $eca"se of t!e negligence of !er co"nsel complainant
initiated t!e dis$arment case against respondent $efore t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e
>!ilippines (/+>) Committee on +ar 5iscipline (C+5). Complainant averred t!at s!e gave !er
f"ll tr"st and confdence to respondent $"t t!e latter failed misera$ly in !is d"ty as a lawyer
and advocate. %!e also claimed t!at respondent-s fail"re to fle t!e re:"ired position paper
and memorand"m on appeal constit"ted gross incompetence and gross negligence w!ic!
ca"sed grave in="ry to complainant.
9
Lastly complainant alleged t!at not only did
respondent fail to fle t!e re:"ired pleadings !e also was remiss in informing !er of t!e
stat"s of t!e case.
/ss"e:
@!et!er or not t!e respondent failed to e&ert !is $est e,ort and a$ility in t!e prosec"tion or
defense of !is client-s ca"se.
4"ling:
4espondent-s fail"re to fle t!e re:"ired pleadings and to inform !is client a$o"t t!e
developments in !er case fall $elow t!e standard e&acted "pon lawyers on dedication and
commitment to t!eir client-s ca"se. 2very case a lawyer accepts deserves !is f"ll attention
diligence s0ill and competence regardless of its importance and w!et!er !e accepts it for a
fee or for free. /t m"st $e recalled t!at t!e Ie#C (in t!e e=ectment case) re:"ired t!e
parties to s"$mit t!eir respective position papers. 'owever respondent did not $ot!er to do
so in total disregard of t!e co"rt order. /n addition respondent failed to fle t!e
memorand"m on appeal t!is time wit! t!e 4#C w!ere complainant-s appeal was t!en
pending. #!erefore dismissing said case on t!at gro"nd alone.
F"rt!er respondent-s fail"re to fle t!e re:"ired pleadings is per se a violation of 4"le 1(.)*
of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility. 4espondent also lac0ed candor in dealing wit! !is
client as !e omitted to apprise complainant of t!e stat"s of !er e=ectment case. /t s!o"ld
$e stressed t!at t!e lawyer;client relations!ip is one of tr"st and confdence. #!"s t!ere is a
need for t!e client to $e ade:"ately and f"lly informed a$o"t t!e developments in !is case.
Atty. #ansinsin was s"spended from t!e practice of law for t!ree (*) mont!s.
3A4C/A 8 +ALA
FAC#%:
%po"ses 3arcia fled a complaint against Atty. 4olando %. +ala for rendering t!em t!e wrong
legal remedy and not ret"rning t!e s"m of money t!ey paid to !im. According to t!e report
of t!e /nvestigating Commissioner Atty. +ala is g"ilty for violating t!e Code of >rofessional
4esponsi$ility. 5espite d"e notice !e did not appeared in any of t!e !earings so t!e case
was decided on t!e $asis of t!e complaint of complainant-s evidence. According to t!e
investigation !e erroneo"sly fled notice of appeal instead of petition for review and t!is
constit"ted lac0 of professional competency. #!e report also concl"ded t!at !e s!o"ld $e
sanctioned for !is "n="stifed ref"sal and fail"re to ret"rn t!e money paid $y !is clients
despite !is promise to ret"rn so. Finally t!ey concl"ded t!at !e s!o"ld $e s"spended from
practice of law for period of si& mont!s in w!ic! t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors agreed wit! !is
s"spension and t!at !e s!o"ld ret"rn t!e amt paid to !im $y !is clients.
/%%E2:
@C7 Atty +ala violated Canon 1( of C>4.
'2L5:
#!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility mandates lawyers to serve t!eir clients wit!
competence and diligence. 4"le 1(.)2 states t!at .a lawyer s!all not !andle any legal
matter wit!o"t ade:"ate preparation1. %pecifcally 4"le 1(.)* provides t!at .a lawyer s!all
not neglect a legal matter entr"sted to !im and !is negligence in connection t!erewit! s!all
render !im lia$le.1
Cnce lawyers agree to ta0e "p t!e ca"se of t!e client t!ey owe fdelity to t!e ca"se and
m"st always $e mindf"l of t!e tr"st and confdence reposed in t!em. A client is entitled to
t!e $eneft of any and every remedy and defense a"t!oriJed $y law and is e&pected to rely
on t!e lawyer to assert every s"c! remedy or defense.
@!erefore !e is s"spended.
F/L/782%# LA75 /7C 8% CA
FAC#%:
Case was fled wit! t!e 4#C for 4ecovery of >ossession of a parcel of land alleging t!at it is
t!e owner t!ereof as evidenced #C# 7o %;1)9FG( $"t w!ic! $y occ"pied $y t!e defendant to
!o"se some of its oKcers and w!o inspire of repeated demands $y t!em !as ref"sed to
vacate t!e same.
#!e defendant t!ro"g! Atty %alva Atty +a"tista Atty 4eyes fled a total of si& e&tensions
wit! t!e co"rt total of (( days $eca"se of ina$ility of co"nsel-s ina$ility to read t!e records
of too m"c! wor0 or !eavy press"re of wor0 illness of t!e co"nsel or rat!er frivolo"s reason
s"c! as "ne&pected wedding of one of t!e co"nsel. Cn t!e si&t! time t!ey fled a motion
t!e co"rt denied and rendered decision t!at t!ey are in defa"lt.
/%%E2:
@C7 lawyers are negligent for s"c! actsL
'2L5:
(pls se r"le 1(.)* E> %CL/5)
#!e private respondent was given e&traordinary opport"nity to !ave its day in co"rt w!en
t!e lower co"rt !ad given it a total of eig!ty;eig!t ((() days from service of s"mmons to fle
its answer to t!e complaint. #!e ina$ility of fo"r lawyers to prepare t!e answer for t!is long
period of time is not ="stifed.
Fail"re to $ring s"it immediately constit"tes negligence of attorneys.
HC827 52 H2%E% 8 >7+
FAC#%:
#!is appeal presents a proced"ral :"estion on t!e dismissal of in appeal as perfected o"t of
time. %pecifcally it involves applications of %ection 1* 4"le F1 of t!e 4"les of Co"rt:
%ec.1* 2,ect of fail"re to fle notice $ond or record on appeal on appeal. M @!ere t!e
notice of appeal Appeal $ond or record on appeal is not fled wit!in t!e period of time
!erein provided t!e appeal s!all $e dismissed.
5efendant $an0 admitted !aving fled its notice of appeal notice on appeal and appeal $ond
$eyond *) day period $"t contended in its motion t!at t!e delay was d"e to accident
mista0e andAor e&c"sa$le negligence. /n s"pport wit! t!eir contention it is alleged t!at t!e
registered mail was given $y t!e $an0-s postal mail cler0 2"genio Iagpoc to Feliciano
HimeneJ Hr registered mail cler0 of appellant-s cas!ier department. 5"e to t!e vol"me of
wor0 it was delivered late on its legal department and failed to inform t!at t!e letter was
two days ago.
/%%E2:
@C7 t!e appellant-s co"nsel is negligent.
'2L5:
#!e lower co"rt did not fnd e&c"sa$le negligence wit! t!eir reason. #!e appellant-s co"nsel
carelessly too0 for granted t!at t!e date of receipt stamped on t!e letter $y t!e legal
department-s legal receiving cler0 was t!e date of receipt from t!e post oKce. Co"nsel for
appellant co"ld !ave easily fo"nd o"t t!e letter date t!at !e in:"ired and t!e co"rt did not
fnd any e&c"se for fail"re to do so. %"c! fatal conse:"ence !as often res"lted as w!at
!appened to appellant-s rig!t to appeal in t!e instant case.
Fail"re to ascertain date of receipt from post oKce of notice of decision res"lting in t!e non;
perfection of t!e appellant-s appeal constit"tes negligence of attorneys.
Gaerlan vs Bernal
Agravante vs Patriarca
FAC#%
/n 19N) H"ana >atriarca fled an action to :"iet title wit! CCFL Cams"r. #!e pretrial was
resc!ed"led after Aggravante moved for cancellation for illness of attorney and medcert was
attac!ed wit! t!e motion. /t was denied for lac0 of notice to adverse party. >retrial was
p"s!ed t!ro"g! wit! defendants a$sent. Aggravante declared to $e s"$stit"ted in !er stead.
/t was granted. Aggravante fled petition for certiorari wit! %C.
/%%E2
@C7 Co"rt ac:"ired ="risdiction over >atriarca.
4EL/73
Bes. Allegation of aggravante wad demise of >atriarca long $efore t!e pretrial setting
prevented t!e #C from ac:"iring ="risdiction over !er. %C said t!at ="risdiction over t!e
person of t!e plainti, is ac:"ired $y t!e co"rt $y t!e fling of complaint. %"$se:"ent deat!
will not a,ect ="risdiction all t!at is entailed is t!e s"$stit"tion of t!e !eirs for t!e deceased
in accordance wit! 4"le * %ection 1O. /n any gro"nd to oppose t!e s"$stit"tion or t!at t!ey
!ad s",ered any pre="dice of any sort $y reason of s"$stit"tion.
Ventura vs Santos
Alcoriza vs Lumakang
FAC#%
AlcoriJa t!e defendant in a civil case and !is lawyer L"ma0ang were not present d"ring t!e
decision despite t!e fact t!at t!ey were notifed to do so. L"ma0ang averred t!at !e did not
go to t!e co"rt $eca"se !e !as waited for AlcoriJa saying !e will not attend wit!o"t !im
$eca"se it wo"ld $e lac0 of preparation on !is part as a lawyer. 'e $egan s"specting t!at
AlcoriJa !as already lost !is interest and as a lawyer !e cannot $e more interested in !is
client-s case t!an t!e client !imself.
/%%E2
@C7 Atty L"ma0ang s!o"ld $e given disciplinary action.
4EL/73
7o. Alt!o"g! Atty. L"ma0ang was not prepared to enter into trial on t!at day still !e co"ld
do t!ings to prote&t t!e interest of !is client $y appearing for !im in t!e co"rt. 'owever it is
not considered t!at t!is inaction of Atty L"ma0ang wo"ld constit"te so serio"s a gro"nd as
to warrant disciplinary action in view of t!e lac0 of interest w!ic! !is client !as s!own in t!e
premises. L"ma0ang for !is fail"re to appear s!o"ld $e reprimanded for !is inaction as it
wo"ld tend to diminis! tr"st and confdence w!ic! t!e p"$lic is s"pposed to repose in t!e
oKce of a lawyer.
Capulong vs Alino
FAC#%
4espondent Ian"el Alino a mem$er of t!e $ar is c!arged $y !is former clients t!e spo"ses
2milio and Cirila Cap"long wit! alleged .gross negligence tantamo"nt to malpractice and
$etrayal of !is client- tr"st and confdence1 after Atty Alino failed to pay doc0et fee and to
deposit t!e estimated cost of printing of t!e record for t!e appeal t!ey fled on Co"rt of
Appeals after t!e decision on a civil case t!at was adverse t!e complainants. #!is fail"re
res"lted to t!e dismissal of t!e appeal.
#!e respondent-s contention was t!e complainants !ad a"t!oriJed !im to e&ercise !is
="dgment and discretion in determining w!et!er or not !e s!o"ld prosec"te t!e appeal and
to regard said s"m of >29( as compensation of !is services in connection wit! said case
s!o"ld !e consider it advisa$le to desist from said appeal and e&pressed .!is intention of
introd"cing additional evidence1.
/%%E2
@C7 t!e actions of Alino constit"te legal malpractice
4EL/73
Bes. /n t!e view of t!e allegation in respondent-s answer t!e same designated its Legal
CKcer for t!e reception of said evidence. Bet after sec"ring fo"r postponements of t!e date
set $y said oKcer for t!is p"rpose respondent did not introd"ce any additional evidence in
!is favo"r. Apart from s"ggesting a misappropriation of f"nds !eld $y !im in tr"st for !is
clients and $reac! of s"c! tr"st t!e foregoing acts and omissions indicate t!e !ig! degree
of irresponsi$ility of respondent !erein and !is "nwort!iness to contin"e as a mem$er of t!e
legal profession. #!e respondent was dis$arred.
Republic vs Arro
Legarda vs CA
PHHC vs Tiongco
FAC#%
Appellants Ielc!or #iongco were registered s:"atters of an area. Long $efore >eople-s
'omesite and 'o"sing Corporation declared a parcel of land em$raced in #C# 1*GN of t!e
9"eJon City 4egister of 5eeds. Appellants were already occ"pying t!e portion and !ave
introd"ced improvements t!ereon and !ad declared t!e property for ta&ation p"rposes. /n
t!e cens"s list of t!e corporation t!e appellants were considered a $onafde occ"pants of
t!e property and d"ring t!e same period t!ey !ad applied to p"rc!ase t!e property from
t!e >''C. #!ey fo"nd o"t later t!at t!e same !ad already $een awarded to As"ncion
2nverga a relative of congressman in spite of t!e fact t!at s!e !ad not occ"pied t!e
property at any time nor introd"ced any improvements. /mmediately "pon t!e discovery of
t!e award a complaint was lodged $y #iongco and 2scasa wit! t!e appellee >''C. After a
preliminary investigation of t!e complaint 2"genio Alvarado. Hr. c!ief of investigation and
researc! section >''C investigating committee wit! t!e recommendation t!at t!ey !ave
priority rig!ts to t!e property w!ic! was given after two investigations. #!e matter !as
$een s"$mitted to t!e 2&ec"tive Committee to render t!eir ="dgment.
'owever no action !as $een ta0en on t!e report. Fo"r mont!s after t!e fling of t!e
complaint t!e >''C instit"ted an action for 4ecovery of >ossession in t!e Co"rt of First
/nstance of 9"eJon City t!e appellant interposes t!e defense of >riority of 4ig!t of >"rc!ase
and a$ility to pay w!ic! was fo"nd in t!e investigation made $y t!e appellee. #!e case was
set for !earing on Fe$r"ary O 19N1. #!e appellant-s co"nsel Atty. +onifacion #anega failed
to notify t!e appellants of t!e sc!ed"led !earing. #!e case was !eard t!e plainti,
introd"ced evidence s!owing owners!ip of t!e property. #!e ="dgment !eld t!at t!e plainti,
is t!e owner of t!e land sit"ated in 9C and t!at t!e defendants wit!o"t t!e consent and
0nowledge of t!e plainti, entered and constr"cted t!eir !o"ses "pon t!en premises
depriving t!e plainti, of t!e possession of t!e same parcel of land. #iongco and 2scasa were
ordered to remove t!eir !o"ses and t!e improvements on t!em and pay t!e plainti, t!e
s"m of >2N per mont! from t!e date of occ"pation "ntil premises in :"estion is restored to
t!e plainti, and t!e >2)) in attorneys fees.
Alt!o"g! t!e a$ove ="dgment was received $y co"nsel for t!e appellants !e never informed
t!e latter a$o"t t!e matter. 7eit!er did !e ta0e steps to protect t!e interests of !is clients
$y presenting a motion for reconsideration andAor fling a petition to set aside ="dgment.
Appellants only came to 0now t!at an adverse decision !ad $een prom"lgated w!en on Iay
19N1 t!e 5ep"ty %!eri, of 9C served t!em a copy of writ of e&ec"tion ordering t!em to
vacate t!e premises and to pay t!e amo"nts ordained t!erein. Appellants lost no time in
contacting t!eir co"nsel Atty #anega and failing to do so t!ey engaged t!e services of Atty.
Ciriaco %ayson w!o presented wit! t!e lower co"rt a petition for relief from ="dgment
accompanied $y aKdavits of merit. #!e presiding ="dge cited Atty #anega admitted to t!e
co"rt t!at !e did not inform t!e appellants of t!e !earing as !e forgot all a$o"t t!e sameP
t!at !e received t!e decision $"t did not also inform t!e appellants a$o"t it $eca"se !e
forgot all a$o"t t!e case e&plaining t!at !e !ad so many e=ectment cases t!en t!at t!e
orders and decisions in t!e case ="st escaped !is attention.
/%%E2
@C7 Atty tanega-s cond"ct constit"tes negligence of !is d"ties as a lawyer.
4EL/73.
#!ere was somet!ing fs!y and s"spicio"s concerning t!e act"ations of former co"nsel Atty
#anega in t!is cae. 'e did not give any signifcance at all to t!e processes of t!e co"rt
w!ic! !as proven pre="dicial to t!e rig!ts of !is clients. #!ere was not!ing w!ic! co"ld !ave
prevented t!e appellants from attending t!e trial of t!e case t!emselves or moving for a
reconsideration of t!e decision or ta0ing t!e necessary appeal from t!e ="dgment if only
t!eir co"nsel !ad informed t!em of t!e co"rt-s processes. Co"nsel !ad simply ignored t!e
rig!ts of !is clients $y giving a lame and Qimsy e&planation t!at t!e co"rt-s processes ="st
escaped !is attention. 'e deprived t!em of t!eir day in co"rt.
#!ere s!o"ld $e no disp"te regarding t!e doctrine t!at normally notice to co"nsel is notice
to parties and t!at s"c! doctrine !as $enefcient e,ects "pon t!e prompt dispensation of
="stice. /ts application to a given case !owever s!o"ld $e loo0ed into and adopted
according to t!e s"rro"nding circ"mstancesP ot!erwise in t!e co"rt-s desire to ma0e a
s!ortc"t of t!e proceedings it mig!t foster wittingly or "nwittingly dangero"s coll"sions to
t!e detriment of ="stice. /t wo"ld t!en $e easy for one lawyer to sell one-s rig!ts down t!e
river $y ="st alleging t!at !e ="st forgot every process of t!e co"rt a,ecting !is clients
$eca"se !e was so $"sy. Ender t!is circ"mstance one s!o"ld not insist t!at a notice to s"c!
irresponsi$le lawyer is also a notice to !is clients.
#!e attention of t!e trial co"rt is invited to t!e cens"ra$le cond"ct of Atty #anega in t!is
partic"lar case and to ta0e s"c! action may $e warranted in t!e premises.
Blanza v Arcangel !"#$%
F: 5"e to lac0 of evidence t!e %C dismissed t!e case against Atty. Arcangel w!o after
vol"nteering to !elp petitioners +lanJa and >asion to claim pension (in connection wit! t!e
deat!s t!eir >C !"s$ands) failed to inform t!em of t!e progress of t!eir case $eca"se t!ey
!ad not paid !im for p!otostating e&penses !e !ad inc"rred.
': .A lawyer !as a dynamic and positive role in t!e comm"nity t!an merely complying wit!
t!e minimal tec!nicalities of t!e stat"re. As a man of law !e is necessarily a leader of t!e
comm"nity loo0ed "p to as a model citiJen. 'is cond"ct m"st perforce $e par e&cellence
especially so w!en as in t!is case !e vol"nteers !is professional services.
4espondent !ere !as not lived "p to t!at ideal standard. /t was "nnecessary to !ave
complainants wait and !ope for si& long years on t!eir pension claims. Epon t!eir ref"sal
to co;operate respondent s!o"ld !ave fort!wit!.
4+C/ v FLC4/5CA.C. 7o. GO*N H"ne 1( 2)1)CA4>/C
H.:
FAC#%:
4"ral +an0 of Calape /nc. fled a complaint for dis$arment against respondent.

4+C/ allegedt!at respondent violated !is oat! and t!e Code of >rofessional
4esponsi$ility.According to 4+C/ respondent and !is clients 7aJareno;4elampagos
gro"p t!ro"g! force andintimidation forci$ly too0 over t!e management and t!e
premises of 4+C/. #!ey also forci$ly evictedCirilo A. 3aray t!e $an0 manager
destroyed t!e $an0-s va"lt and installed t!eir own sta, to r"n t!e $an0.4espondent
added t!at t!e criminal complaint for malicio"s misc!ief fled against !im $y 4+C/
wasalready dismissedP w!ile t!e complaint for grave coercion was ordered s"spend
ed $eca"se of t!ee&istence of a pre="dicial :"estion. 4espondent said t!at t!e
dis$arment complaint was fled against !imin retaliation for t!e administrative
cases !e fled against 4+C/-s co"nsel and t!e trial co"rt ="dges of +o!ol.Ioreover
respondent claimed t!at 4+C/ failed to present any evidence to prove t!eir
allegations.4espondent added t!at t!e aKdavits attac!ed to t!e complaint were
never identifed aKrmed or confrmed $y t!e aKants and t!at none of t!e
doc"mentary e&!i$its were originals or certifed tr"ecopies.
/%%E2:
@!et!er or not respondent violated !is oat! and t!e C>4 Canon 19.
'2L5:
#!e Co"rt !eld t!at respondent was g"ilty as c!arged and s"spended for a year. #!e
frst andforemost d"ty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to t!e 4ep"$lic of t!e
>!ilippines "p!old t!eConstit"tion and o$ey t!e laws of t!e land. /t is t!e lawyer-s
d"ty to promote respect for t!e law and legal processes and to a$stain from
activities aimed at defance of t!e law or lessening confdence in t!e
legalsystem.Canon 19 of t!e Code provides t!at a lawyer s!all represent !is client
wit! Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!elaw. /t is !is d"ty to co"nsel !is clients to "se
peacef"l and lawf"l met!ods in see0ing ="stice and refrainfrom doing an intentional
wrong to t!eir adversaries.A lawyer-s d"ty is not to !is client $"t to t!e
administration of ="stice. #o t!at end !is client-s s"ccess isw!olly s"$ordinate. 'is
cond"ct o"g!t to and m"st always $e scr"p"lo"sly o$servant of t!e law
andet!ics.Any means not !onora$le fair and !onest w!ic! is resorted to $y t!e
lawyer even in t!e p"rs"it of !is devotion to !is client-s ca"se is condemna$le
and "net!ical.
Facts:
R
Atty. Lolito 3. Aparicio appeared as legal co"nselfor 3race C. '"fana in an illegal
dismissal case$efore t!e 7ational La$or 4elations Commission(7L4C) against
complainant Fernando Iartin >ena.'"fana is praying for claim for separation pay
$"t>ena re=ected t!e claim as $aseless.
R
#!ereafter Aparicio sent >ena a letter
reiterating!is clientSs claim for separation pay. #!ro"g! !isletter !e t!reatened
complainant t!at s!o"ld >enafail to pay t!e amo"nts t!ey propose as
settlement!e wo"ld fle and claim $igger amo"nts incl"dingmoral damages as well
as m"ltiple c!arges s"c!
asta& evasion falsifcation of doc"ments andcancellation of $"siness license to ope
rate d"e toviolations of laws.
/ss"e:
R
@C7 Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.)1) of t!eC>4 en=oining every lawyer to
represent !is client wit!Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e lawL
B2%

7+:
4"le 19.)1.

A lawyer s!all employ
only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is
client and s!all not present participate in presenting or t!reaten to
present "nfo"nded criminal c!arges to o$tain animproper advantage in any case or
proceeding.T
R
@C7 it is proper to dis$ar AparicioL
7Creprimand only'eld:
R
Ender Canon 19 a lawyer s!o"ld not fle or t!reaten to fle any "nfo"nded or
$aseless criminalcase or cases against t!e adversaries of !is
clientdesigned to sec"re leverage to compel t!eadversaries to yield or wit!draw t!e
ir own casesagainst t!e lawyerSs client.
R
/n t!e case at $ar t!e t!reats are not
only"net!ical for violating Canon 19 $"t t!ey alsoamo"nt to
$lac0mail
.
+lac0mail is Tt!e e&tortion of money from a person $y t!reats of acc"sation
or e&pos"re or opposition in t!e p"$lic printsUo$taining of val"e from a person as
a condition of refraining from ma0ing an acc"sation against !im or disclosing
some secret calc"lated to operate to !is pre="dice.T
#!e letter in t!is case contains more t!an ="st a simple demand to pay. /t even
contains at!reat to fle retaliatory c!arges against complainantw!ic! !ave not!ing
to do wit! !is clientSs claim for separation pay. /ndeed letters of t!is nat"re are
defnitely proscri$ed $y t!e Code of >rofessional4esponsi$ility.
R
/t was not respondentSs intention to pointo"t complainantSs violations of t!e
law as !e sogallantly claims. Far from it t!e letter even containsan implied promise
to
T0eep silentT
a$o"t t!e saidviolations if payment of t!e claim is made on t!edate indicated.
R
52C/%/C7:
@!ile t!e writing of t!e
letter went $eyond et!ical standards we !old t!atdis$arment is too severe a
penalty to $e imposed onrespondent considering t!at !e wrote t!e same
o"tof !is overJealo"sness to protect !is clientSsinterests. Accordingly t!e more
appropriate penaltyis
reprimand.
R
Cn t!e s"i generis c!aracter of dis$armentproceedings t!e Co"rt ratiocinated in
/n re Almacen
:5isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
s"i generis
.
7eit!er p"rely civil nor p"rely criminal
t!ey do not involve a trial of an action or a s"it $"t israt!er an
investigation $y t!e Co"rt into t!econd"ct of one of its oKcers
. 7ot $eing intended toinQict p"nis!ment it is in no sense a criminalprosec"tion.
Accordingly
t!ere is neit!er a plainti, nor a prosec"tor t!erein
. /t may $e initiated $y t!eCo"rt
mot" proprio
.
>"$lic interest is its primaryo$=ective and t!e real :"estion for determinationis
w!et!er or not t!e attorney is still a ft personto $e allowed t!e privileges as s"c!
. 'ence in t!ee&ercise of its disciplinary powers
t!e Co"rt merelycalls "pon a mem$er of t!e +ar to acco"nt for !isact"ations as an
oKcer of t!e Co"rt wit! t!e
endin view of preserving t!e p"rity of t!e legalprofession and t!e proper and !onest
administration of ="stice $y p"rging t!eprofession of mem$ers w!o $y t!eir
miscond"ct!ave proved t!emselves no longer wort!y to
$eentr"sted wit! t!e d"ties and responsi$ilitiespertaining to t!e oKce of an
attorney. /n s"c!post"re t!ere can t!"s $e no occasion to spea0of a complainant or
a prosec"tor
.
4C5CLFC I/LLA42 petitioner
vs.
A##B. 2E%#A9E/C V. IC7#24C respondent.
Complainant o$tained a favora$le ="dgment from t!e I#C w!ic! ordered
respondent-s client to vacate t!e premises s"$=ect of t!e e=ectment case.
respondent as co"nsel appealed t!e decision. CA dismissed CoSs appeal from t!e
decision of t!e 4#C for fail"re to comply wit! t!e proper proced"res. 4espondent
t!ereafter resorted to devio"s and "nder!anded means to delay t!e e&ec"tion of
t!e ="dgment rendered $y t!e I#C adverse to !is client.
'eld: %E%>27525 for (1) year. 4"le 12.)2. W A lawyer s!all not fle m"ltiple actions
arising from t!e same ca"se. 4"le 12.)F. W A lawyer s!all not "nd"ly delay a case
impede t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment or mis"se co"rt processes.
Ender Canon 19 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility a lawyer is re:"ired to
represent !is client Twit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e law.T #!e Code en=oins a lawyer to
employ only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is client (4"le
19.)1) and warns !im not to allow !is client to dictate t!e proced"re in !andling t!e
case (4"le 19.)*). /n s!ort a lawyer is not a g"n for !ire.
/t is "net!ical for a lawyer to a$"se or wrongf"lly "se t!e ="dicial process li0e t!e
fling of dilatory motions repetitio"s litigation and frivolo"s appeals for t!e sole
p"rpose of fr"strating and delaying t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment.
A ="dgment can $e ann"lled only on two gro"nds: (a) t!at t!e ="dgment is void for
want of ="risdiction or for lac0 of d"e process of law or ($) t!at it !as $een o$tained
$y fra"d.
H"dging from t!e n"m$er of actions fled $y respondent to forestall t!e e&ec"tion of
t!e same ="dgment respondent is also g"ilty of for"m s!opping. For"m s!opping
e&ists w!en $y reason of an adverse decision in one for"m defendant vent"res to
anot!er for a more favora$le resol"tion of !is case.
Corp"J vs CA
Atty 5avid and Corp"J were good friends. /n Corp"J-s civil case 5avid $ecame !is
co"nsel. >rior to rendering of fnal ="dgment Corp"J gave t!e lawyer a c!ec0 w!ic!
t!e latter ret"rned. After favora$le decision was rendered Atty. 5avid demanded
attorney-s fee w!ic! Corp"J ref"sed to deliver alleging t!at 5avid-s services were
o,ered grat"ito"sly. #!e Co"rt decided t!at Atty. 5avid s!o"ld $e paid attorney-s
fees.
': An attorney;client relations!ip can $e created $y implied agreement as w!en t!e
attorney act"ally rendered legal services for a person w!o is a close friend. #!e
o$ligation of s"c! a person to pay attorney-s fees is $ased on t!e law of contracts-
concept of facio "t des (no one s!all "n="stly enric! !imself at t!e e&pense of
ot!ers.) A$sence of an e&press contract for attorney-s fees $etween respondent
5avid and petitioner Corp"s is no arg"ment against t!e payment of attorney-s fees
considering t!eir close relations!ip w!ic! signifes m"t"al tr"st and confdence
$etween t!em.
Al$ano v. Coloma (19NO)
F: Coloma was Al$ano-s co"nsel d"ring t!e Hapanese occ"pation. According to
Al$ano Coloma failed to e&pedite !earing and termination of case. Coloma denied
t!at s!e did not!ing to e&pedite t!e !earing and termination of s"c! civil case as
t!e records wo"ld s!ow ot!erwise. After Al$anos won in t!e case Coloma
intervened to collect attorney-s fee w!ic! is comp"ted at **.*X of w!at t!e
Al$anos can recover. #!e Co"rt !eld t!at Coloma may recover attorney-s fees.
': Co"nsel any co"nsel if wort!y of !is !ire is entitled to $e f"lly recompensed for
!is services. @it! !is capital consisting solely of !is $rains and !is s0ill ac:"ired at
tremendo"s cost not only in money $"t in t!e e&pendit"re of time and energy !e is
entitled to t!e protection of any ="dicial tri$"nal against any attempt on t!e part of
a client to escape payment of !is fees. /t is indeed ironic if after p"tting fort! t!e
$est t!at is in !im to sec"re ="stice for t!e party !e represents !e !imself wo"ld
not get !is d"e. %"c! an event"ality t!is Co"rt is determined to avoid.
Case of #raders 4oyal +an0 2mployees Enion; /ndependent vs 7L4C and 2mman"el
7oel A. Cr"J
3.4.7o. 12)G92 1FIarc!199O
FAC#% CF #'2 CA%2:
#!at #4+ 2mployees Enion !ad a retainer agreement wit! Atty. Cr"J for *))).))
in consideration of t!e law frm-s "nderta0ing to render t!e services en"merated in
t!eir contract. 5"ring t!e e&istence of t!e agreement t!e "nion referred to t!e
private respondent t!e claims of its mem$ers for !oliday mid;year and year;end
$on"ses against t!eir employer #4+.
#!e 7L4C granted t!e petition of t!e "nion wit! regard to t!e demand for $on"ses.
After t!e %.C. acting "pon t!e c!allenge of #4+an0 of t!e 7L4C decision in its
decision on A"g"st *) 199) modifed t!e decision of t!e 7L4C $y deleting t!e
award of mid; year and year; end $on"s di,erentials w!ile aKrming t!e award of
!oliday pay di,erential.
After #4+ vol"ntarily complied wit! t!e decision t!e respondent on %eptem$er 1(
199) notifed t!e "nion #4+ management and t!e 7L4C of !is rig!t to e&ercise and
enforce !is attorney-s lien over t!e award of !oliday pay di,erential t!ro"g! a letter
dated Ccto$er ( 199).
/%%E2% CF #'2 CA%2:
@as t!e lien made $y t!e respondent attorney over t!e award as attorney-s fees
validL
; Bes +eca"se t!e contract $etween t!e Enion and t!e attorney stip"lates t!at t!e
*))).)) paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for t!e law
frm-s commitment to render t!e services en"merated on >A4# A and + of t!e
retainer agreement.
; #!e retainer fee paid $y t!e Enion is not a payment for t!e frm-s e&ec"tion or
performance of t!e services listed in t!e contract s"$=ect to t!e partic"lar
:"alifcations.
; C$ligations do not emanate only from contracts. Cne of t!e so"rces of e&tra;
contract"al o$ligations fo"nd in o"r civil code is t!e :"asi contract premised on t!e
roman ma&im t!at nemo alteri"s detrimento loc"pletari potest
; As early as 19)* t!e co"rt !as allowed t!e payment of reasona$le professional
fees to an interpreter not wit!standing t!e lac0 of "nderstanding wit! !is client as
to !is rem"neration on t!e $asis a :"asi;contract. /t is not necessary t!at t!e
parties agree on a defnite fee for t!e special services rendered $y t!e frm in order
t!at t!e "nion may $e o$ligated to pay compensation. 2:"ity and fair play dictate
t!at petitioner s!o"ld pay t!e same after it accepted availed itself of and $enefted
from t!e frm-s services.
; #!e meas"re of compensation for private respondent-s services as against !is
client s!o"ld $e properly addressed $y t!e r"le of :"ant"m mer"it is "sed as t!e
$asis for determining t!e lawyer-s professional fees in t!e a$sence of a contract.
'2L5:
#!e resol"tion of t!e 7L4C wit! regard to t!e attorney-s fees is modifed and Enion
is !ere$y ordered to pay 1)))) for t!e frm-s rendered services.
C$ligations and Contracts #erms:
R 3eneral 4etaining Fee; is t!e fee paid to a lawyer to sec"re !is f"t"re services as
general co"nsel for any ordinary legal pro$lem t!at may arise from ro"tinary
$"siness of t!e client and referred to !im for legal action. #!e reason for t!e
rem"neration is t!at t!e lawyer is deprived of t!e opport"nity of rendering services
for a fee to t!e opposing party or ot!er parties. /t is a compensation for lost
opport"nities.
5isting"is! from 4"le *F M 7ocom v. Camerino 34 1(29(F Fe$ 1) 2))9
F: Camarino were agric"lt"ral tenants wA rig!t to redeem. Allegedly e&ec"ted an
irrevoca$le >ower of Atty to sell parcels of land. %"$se:"ently annotated to t!e
#C#. Camarino wanted to ann"l s"c! consent was vitiated $eca"se did not 0now it
was an irrevoca$le power of attorney. 7ocom alleged t!at it cannot $e cancelled
"nilaterally alleged t!at !e paid for it....Camarinos fled motion for s"mmary
="dgment stating t!at sicne 7ocom admitted to t!e e&istence of t!e irrevoca$le
power of attorney...s"mmary ="dgment proper $eca"se only resolve @C7 it was
co"pled wA interest and @C7 it is irrevoca$le. Allege t!at t!ere is not iss"e as to t!e
contents of t!e irrevoca$le power of atty
': facts not s"$=ect motion for s"mmary =d"gment
2 re:"isites:
7o gen"ine iss"e as to material facts
>arty moving for s"mmary ="dgment entitled to ="dgment $y law
3enato v. %ilapan FG* >!il. 91) (2))*)
Facts:
Atty. %ilapan and 3enato !ad an attorney;client relations!ip. 3enato fled c!arges
against %ilapan d"e to t!e latter-s fail"re to pay amortiJation fees. %ilapan alleged
in !is answer t!at 3enato is a $"sinessman in real estate $"siness w!o traded and
$"ys and sells defciency ta&ed imported cars provides s!ar0 loan and engages in
ot!er s!ady deals. 'e also alleged t!at 3enato !as many pending cases and !ad
attempted to $ri$e oKcials to lift t!e case. #!e %C !eld t!at %ilapan !ad violated
confdentiality of lawyer;client relations!ip.
'eld:
.Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility provides t!at a lawyer owes
fdelity to t!e ca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and confdence
reposed on !im. #!e r"le is t!at an attorney is not permitted to disclose
comm"nications made to !im in !is professional c!aracter $y a client "nless t!e
latter consents. #!is o$ligation to preserve t!e confdences and secrets of a client
arises at t!e inception of t!eir relations!ip. #!e protection given to t!e client is
perpet"al and does not cease wit! t!e termination of t!e litigation nor is it a,ected
$y t!e party-s ceasing to employ t!e attorney and retaining anot!er or $y any
ot!er c!ange of relation $etween t!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e client. ./t
m"st $e stressed !owever t!at t!e privilege against disclos"re of confdential
comm"nications or information is limited only to comm"nications w!ic! are
legitimately and properly wit!in t!e scope of a lawf"l employment of a lawyer. /t
does not e&tend to t!ose made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a
fra"d. /t is not wit!in t!e profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to !ow !e may
commit a crime. #!"s t!e attorney;client privilege does not attac! t!ere $eing no
professional employment in t!e strict sense. .7evert!eless respondent-s
e&planation t!at it was necessary for !im to ma0e t!e disclos"res in !is pleading
fails to satisfy t!e Co"rt. #!e disclos"res were not indispensa$le to protect !is rig!ts
as t!ey were not pertinent to t!e foreclos"re case. /t was improper for t!e respondent to "se
it against t!e complainant in t!e foreclos"re case as it was not t!e s"$=ect matter of
litigation t!erein and respondent-s professional competence and legal advice were not $eing
attac0ed in said case.1
327A#C v. %/LA>A7
>E7C H"ly 1F 2))*7A#E42Complaint for dis$arment
&ACTS (Complainant-s side);H"ly 1992 respondent allegedly as0ed t!e complainant
if !e co"ld rent asmall oKce space in complainant-s$"ilding in 9"eJon City for !is
law practice. Complainant acceded and introd"ced respondent to Atty.+en=amin
5acanay complainant-s retained lawyer w!o accommodated respondent in t!e
$"ilding and made !im !andle some of complainant-s cases.;4espondent $orrowed
two !"ndred t!o"sand pesos (>2))))).))) from complainant w!ic! !e intended to
"se as down payment for t!e p"rc!ase of a new car. /n ret"rn respondent iss"ed to
complainant a postdated c!ec0 in t!e amo"nt of >1ONG2(.))to answer for t!e si&
(N) mont!s interest on t!e loan. 'e li0ewise mortgaged to complainant !is !o"se
and lot in 9"eJon City $"t did not s"rrender its title claiming t!at it was t!e s"$=ect
of reconstit"tion proceedings $efore t!e 9"eJon City 4egister of 5eeds.;#!e
respondent $o"g!t t!e car $"t t!e doc"ment of sale was iss"ed in t!e
complainant-s name and fnanced t!ro"g! City #r"st Company.;Han"ary 199*:
respondent introd"ced to complainant a certain 2mman"el 4omero w!o wanted to
$orrow money from complainant. Complainant lent 4omero t!e money and from
t!is transaction respondent earned commission in t!e amo"nt
of >G22(9.9). Complainant "sed t!e commission to pay respondent-s arrears wit!
t!e car fnancing frm.;%"$se:"ently respondent failed to pay t!e amortiJation on
t!e car and t!e fnancing frm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant
tried to encas! respondent-s postdated c!ec0 wit! t!e drawee $an0 $"t it was
dis!onored as respondent-s acco"nt t!erein was already closed. 4espondent failed
to !eed complainant-s repeated demands for payment. Complainant t!en fled a
criminal case against respondent for violation of +atas >am$ansa +lg. 22and a civil
case for ="dicial foreclos"re of real estate mortgage.;/n t!e foreclos"re case t!ere
spondent alleged t!at t!e complainant is engaged in $"y and sell of defciency
ta&ed imported carss!ar0 loans and s!ady deals and !as many cases pending in
co"rt w!ic! t!e complainant denied adding t!at t!e allegations were li$elo"s and
were irrelevant to t!e foreclos"re case. A partic"lar allegation states t!at in one
case t!e complainant wo"ld only give t!e respondent t!e doc"ment of sale of t!e
car if t!e latter wo"ld $ri$e t!e review committee of t!e 5CH for a case of t!e
complainant. According to t!e complainant t!e allegation was aside from $eing
false immaterial to t!e foreclos"re case and malicio"sly designed to defame !im
t!e respondent was also g"ilty of $rea0ing t!eir confdential lawyer;client
relations!ip and s!o"ld $e !eld administratively lia$le.; t!e complainant t!en fled
t!is complaint for dis$arment praying also t!at an administrative sanction $e
meted against respondent for !isiss"ance of a $o"ncing c!ec0
(respondent-s side);/t was complainant w!o o,ered !im an oKce space in !is
$"ilding and retained !im as co"nsel as t!e latter was impressed wit! t!e way !e
!andled a +.>. 22 case fled against complainant.;#!ere was not!ing li$elo"s in !is
imp"tations of dis!onest $"siness practices to complainant and !is revelation of
complainant-s desire to $ri$e government oKcials in relation to !is pending criminal
case. 'e claimed to !ave made t!ese statements in t!e co"rse of ="dicial
proceedings to defend !is case and discredit complainant-s credi$ility $y
esta$lis!ing !is criminal propensity to commit fra"d tell lies and violate laws. 'e
arg"ed t!at !e is not g"ilty of $rea0ing !is confdential lawyer;client relations!ip
wit! complainant a s!e made t!e disclos"re in defense of !is !onor and rep"tation.;
4espondent asserted t!at !e e&ec"ted t!e real estate mortgage infavor of
complainant wit!o"t consideration and only as a .formal re:"irement1 so !e co"ld
o$tain t!e>2))))).)) loan and for t!is reason !e did not s"rrender !is title over
t!e mortgaged property to complainant.;4espondent claimed t!at !e iss"ed t!e
postdated c!ec0 not for acco"nt or for val"e $"t only: (a) to serve as.some 0ind of
ac0nowledgment1 t!at !e already received in advance a portion of !is attorney-s
fees from t!e complainant for t!e legal services !e rendered and ($) as a form
of ass"rance t!at !e will not a$andon t!e cases !e was !andling for complainant.;
4espondent denied t!at !e received a >G22(9.9) commission from 4omero-s loan
w!ic! !e allegedly !elped facilitate alleging t!at t!e amo"nt paid to !im was for
attorney-s fees. 'e "sed t!is amo"nt to pay !is arrears wit! t!e car fnancing frm.
Cn Han"ary 29 199* $efore paying t!e ne&t amortiJation on t!e car !e as0ed
complainant to e&ec"te a deed of sale transferring owners!ip of t!e car
to !im. Complainant ref"sed and insisted t!at !e wo"ld transfer owners!ip of t!e
car only after t!e termination of !is criminal case w!ic! respondent was !andling as
!is defense lawyer. Conse:"ently respondent stopped paying t!e amortiJation on
t!e car. 4espondent also alleged t!at !e fled a per="ry case against complainant
w!o in t"rn fled a complaint for li$el against !im.;Ccto$er 2O 199*: t!e Co"rt
referred t!e administrative case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines (/+>)for
investigation report and recommendation.;A"g"st * 2))2 t!e +oard of 3overnors
of t!e /+> approved t!e report of t!e investigating commissioner fnding t!e
respondent g"ilty as c!arged and recommending !is s"spension from t!e practice
of law for one (1) year./%%E2%1. @C7 t!e co"rt !as t!e ="risdiction to sanction
respondent for !isiss"ance of t!e $o"ncing c!ec0.2. @C7 t!e respondent
committed a $reac! of tr"st and confdence $y imp"ting to complainant illegal
practices and disclosing complainant-s alleged intention to $ri$e government
oKcials in connection wit! a pending case and t!"s wo"ld $e sanctioned.
'2L51. 7C it is not for t!e Co"rt to sanction respondent for !is iss"ance of a
$o"ncing c!ec0 w!ic! wo"ld $e determined $yt!e trial co"rt.
4atio
@e s!all not delve into t!emerits of t!e vario"s criminal and civilcases pending
$etween t!e parties. /tis for t!e trial co"rts !andling t!esecases to ascertain t!e
tr"t! or falsityof t!e allegations made t!erein.2. B2% respondent-s allegations
anddisclos"res in t!e foreclos"re caseamo"nt to a $reac! of fdelitys"Kcient to
warrant t!e imposition of disciplinary sanction against !im.
4atio
A lawyer m"st cond"ct !imselfespecially in !is dealings wit! !isclients wit!
integrity in a manner t!atis $eyond reproac!. 'is relations!ipwit! !is clients s!o"ld
$ec!aracteriJed $y t!e !ig!est degree of good fait! and fairness.
4easoning
Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility providest!at a lawyer owes
fdelity to t!eca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and
confdencereposed on !im. #!e long;esta$lis!edr"le is t!at an attorney is
notpermitted to disclose comm"nicationsmade to !im in !is professionalc!aracter
$y a client "nless t!e latterconsents.;#!e o$ligation to preserve t!econfdences and
secrets of a clientarises at t!e inception of t!eirrelations!ip. #!e protection given
tot!e client is perpet"al and does notcease wit! t!e termination of t!elitigation nor
is it a,ected $y t!eparty-s ceasing to employ t!eattorney and retaining anot!er or
$yany ot!er c!ange of relation $etweent!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e
client.;'owever t!e privilege against disclos"re of confdential comm"nications or
information islimited only to comm"nications w!ic!are legitimately and properly
wit!int!e scope of a lawf"l employment of alawyer./t does not e&tend to t!osemade
in contemplation of a crime orperpetration of a fra"d. /f t!e "nlawf"lp"rpose is
avowed as in t!is case t!ecomplainant-s alleged intention to$ri$e government
oKcials in relationto !is case t!e comm"nication is notcovered $y t!e privilege as
t!e clientdoes not cons"lt t!e lawyerprofessionally. /t is not wit!in t!eprofession of a
lawyer to advise aclient as to !ow !e may commit acrime as a lawyer is not a g"n
for!ire. #!"s t!e attorney;clientprivilege does not attac! t!ere $eingno
professional employment in t!estrict sense.;#!e disclos"res were notindispensa$le
to protect !is rig!ts ast!ey were not pertinent to t!eforeclos"re case. /t
was improper fort!e respondent to "se it against t!ecomplainant in t!e foreclos"re
case asit was not t!e s"$=ect matter of litigation t!erein and
respondent-sprofessional competence and legaladvice were not $eing attac0ed in
saidcase.
5isposition
/7 8/2@ @'242CFrespondent Atty. 2sse& L. %ilapan isordered s"spended from t!e
practiceof law for a period of si& (N) mont!se,ective "pon receipt of
t!is5ecision. Let a copy of t!is 5ecision$e f"rnis!ed t!e CKce of t!e +arConfdant
and t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines. #!e Co"rtAdministrator is directed to
circ"latet!is order of s"spension to all co"rtsin t!e co"ntry.%C C452425.
3.4. 7o. L;9N1 %eptem$er 21 19F9
+LA75/7A 3AI+CA '/LA5C petitioner
vs.
HC%2 3E#/2442V 5A8/5 8/C27#2 H. F4A7C/%CC HACC+ A%%A5 and %2L/I HACC+
A%%A5 respondents.
>etitioner alleged t!at s!e and t!e co"nsel for t!e defendant !ad an attorney;client
relations!ip wit! !er w!en $efore t!e trial of t!e case s!e went to defendant-s
co"nsel gave !im t!e papers of t!e case and ot!er information relevant t!ereto
alt!o"g! s!e was not a$le to pay !im legal fees. .#!at respondent-s law frm mailed
to t!e plainti, a written opinion over !is signat"re on t!e merits of !er caseP t!at
t!is opinion was reac!ed on t!e $asis of papers s!e !ad s"$mitted at !is oKceP t!at
Irs. 'iladoSs p"rpose in s"$mitting t!ose papers was to sec"re Attorney FranciscoSs
professional services.1 Atty. Francisco appeared as co"nsel for defendant and
plainti, did not o$=ect to it "ntil (F) mont!s after. #!en plainti, moved to dismiss
t!e case $etween !er and defendant.
/ss"e: @as t!ere an attorney;client relations!ip $etween plainti, and Atty.
FranciscoL
'eld: B2%. /n order to constit"te t!e relation a professional one and not merely one
of principal and agent t!e attorneys m"st $e employed eit!er to give advice "pon a
legal point to prosec"te or defend an action in co"rt of ="stice or to prepare and
draft in legal form s"c! papers as deeds $ills contracts and t!e li0e.
#o constit"te professional employment it is not essential t!at t!e client s!o"ld !ave
employed t!e attorney professionally on any previo"s occasion. /t is not necessary
t!at any retainer s!o"ld !ave $een paid promised or c!arged forP neit!er is it
material t!at t!e attorney cons"lted did not afterward "nderta0e t!e case a$o"t
w!ic! t!e cons"ltation was !ad. /f a person in respect to !is $"siness a,airs or
tro"$les of any 0ind cons"lts wit! !is attorney in !is professional capacity wit! t!e
view to o$taining professional advice or assistance and t!e attorney vol"ntarily
permits or ac:"iesces in s"c! cons"ltation t!en t!e professional employment m"st
$e regarded as esta$lis!ed.
.An attorney is employed;t!at is !e is engaged in !is professional capacity as a
lawyer or co"nselor;w!en !e is listening to !is clientSs preliminary statement of !is
case or w!en !e is giving advice t!ereon ="st as tr"ly as w!en !e is drawing !is
clientSs pleadings or advocating !is clientSs ca"se in open co"rt. An acceptance of
t!e relation is implied on t!e part of t!e attorney from !is acting in $e!alf of !is
client in p"rs"ance of a re:"est $y t!e latter.1
#!at only copies of pleadings already fled in co"rt were f"rnis!ed to Attorney
Agrava and t!at t!is $eing so no secret comm"nication was transmitted to !im $y
t!e plainti, wo"ld not vary t!e sit"ation even if we s!o"ld discard Irs. 'iladoSs
statement t!at ot!er papers personal and private in c!aracter were t"rned in $y
!er. >recedents are at !and to s"pport t!e doctrine t!at t!e mere relation of
attorney and client o"g!t to precl"de t!e attorney from accepting t!e opposite
partySs retainer in t!e same litigation regardless of w!at information was received
$y !im from !is frst client.
An attorney on terminating !is employment cannot t!ereafter act as co"nsel
against !is client in t!e same general matter even t!o"g! w!ile acting for !is
former client !e ac:"ired no 0nowledge w!ic! co"ld operate to !is clientSs
disadvantage in t!e s"$se:"ent adverse employment
TA retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or co"nsel to ins"re and
sec"re !is f"t"re services and ind"ce !im to act for t!e client. /t is intended to
rem"nerate co"nsel for $eing deprived $y $eing retained $y one party of t!e
opport"nity of rendering services to t!e ot!er and of receiving pay from !im and
t!e payment of s"c! fee in t!e a$sence of an e&press "nderstanding to t!e
contrary is neit!er made nor received in payment of t!e services contemplatedP its
payment !as no relation to t!e o$ligation of t!e client to pay !is attorney for t!e
services w!ic! !e !as retained !im to perform.T
Felicisimo Iontano vs /+>
>C727#2: <ap"nan
FAC#%: Atty. 5ealca co"nsel for Felicisimo Iontano wit!drew !is services for !is
client "pon
t!e latterSs fail"re to comply wit! t!eir retainer agreement.
'2L5: @e fnd Atty 5ealca-s cond"ct "n$ecoming of a mem$er of t!e legal
profession. EnderCanon 22 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility a lawyer s!all
wit!draw !is services onlyfor good ca"se and "pon notice appropriate in t!e
circ"mstances. Alt!o"g! !e may wit!draw !isservices w!en client deli$erately fails
to pay t!e fees for t!e services "nder t!e circ"mstancesof t!e present case Atty.
5ealca-s wit!drawal was "n="stifed as complainant did not deli$eratelyfail to pay
!im t!e atty-s fees. 4"le 2).F of Canon 29) mandates t!at a lawyer s!all
avoidcontroversies wit! clients concerning !is compensation and s!all resort to
="dicial action only toprevent imposition in="stice or fra"d. %adly for not so large a
s"m owed to !im $y complainant (> *G)).))) respondent lawyer failed to act in
accordance wit! t!e demands of t!e Code. +"tonly in a clear case of miscond"ct
t!at serio"sly a,ects t!e standing and c!aracter of t!e lawyeras an oKcer of t!e
co"rt and mem$er of t!e $ar will mdis$arment $e imposed a s penalty.
F2L/C/%/IC I. IC7#A7C complainant vs. /7#234A#25 +A4 of t!e >'/L/>>/72%
A75 Atty. HEA7 %. 52ALCA respondents.
4 2 % C L E # / C 7
<A>E7A7 H.:
/n a verifed complaint fled $efore t!is Co"rt on Iarc! 9 199F complainant
Felicisimo I. Iontano c!arged Atty. H"an 5ealca wit! miscond"ct and prays t!at !e
$e .sternly dealt wit administratively.1 #!e complaintY1ZY1Z is s"mmariJed as
follows:
1. Cn 7ovem$er 1F 1992 t!e complainant !ired t!e services of Atty. H"an %. 5ealca
as !is co"nsel in colla$oration wit! Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in a case pending
$efore t!e Co"rt of Appeals doc0eted as CA;3.4. C8 7o. *OFNO w!erein t!e
complainant was t!e plainti,;appellant.
2. #!e parties agreed "pon attorney-s fees in t!e amo"nt of >1G))).)) ffty
percent (G)X) of w!ic! was paya$le "pon acceptance of t!e case and t!e remaining
$alance "pon t!e termination of t!e case. Accordingly complainant paid respondent
t!e amo"nt of >OG)).)) representing G)X of t!e attorney-s fee.
*. #!ereafter even $efore t!e respondent co"nsel !ad prepared t!e appellant-s
$rief and contrary to t!eir agreement t!at t!e remaining $alance $e paya$le after
t!e termination of t!e case Atty. 5ealca demanded an additional payment from
complainant. Complainant o$liged $y paying t!e amo"nt of >F))).)).
F. >rior to t!e fling of t!e appellant-s $rief respondent co"nsel again demand
payment of t!e remaining $alance of *G)).)). @!en complainant was "na$le to do
so respondent lawyer wit!drew !is appearance as complainant-s co"nsel wit!o"t
!is prior 0nowledge andAor conformity. 4et"rning t!e case folder to t!e complainant
respondent co"nsel attac!ed a 7ote dated Fe$r"ary 2( 199*Y1ZY2Z stating:
2( Fe$r"ary 199F
>epe and 5el Iontano
For $rea0ing yo"r promise since yo" do not want to f"lfll yo"r end of t!e $argain
!ere-s yo"r reward:
'encefort! yo" lawyer for yo"rselves. 'ere are yo"r papers.
Ho!nny
Complainant claimed t!at s"c! cond"ct $y respondent co"nsel e&ceeded t!e et!ical
standards of t!e law profession and prays t!at t!e latter $e sternly dealt wit!
administratively. Complainant later on fled motions praying for t!e imposition of t!e
ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment.
After respondent co"nsel fled !is comment on t!e complaint t!e Co"rt in t!e
4esol"tion of A"g"st 1 199F referred t!e case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e
>!ilippines (/+>) for investigation report and recommendation.
#!e /nvestigating Commissioner fo"nd respondent co"nsel g"ilty of "nprofessional
cond"ct and recommended t!at !e $e .severely reprimanded.1 'owever in a
4esol"tionY1ZY*Z $y t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors on H"ly 2N 199O it was resolved t!at
t!e penalty recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner meted to respondent
$y amended to .t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension from t!e practice of law for !aving
$een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic confdence regarding !is
d"ty as a lawyer.1
4espondent co"nsel so"g!t reconsideration of t!e aforementioned resol"tion of t!e
/+> alleging t!at t!e latter misappre!ended t!e facts and t!at in any case !e did
not deserve t!e penalty imposed. #!e tr"e facts according to !im are t!e
following:
1. Complainant is $eing represented $y Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in !is case on
appealP
2. 5"e to t!e ailment of Atty. 3erona-s da"g!ter !e co"ld not prepare and s"$mit
complainant-s appellant-s $rief on timeP
*. Complainant went to t!e respondent to do ="st t!at i.e. prepare and s"$mit !is
appellant-s $rief on time at t!e agreed fee of >1G))).)) G)X down and G)X "pon
its completionP
F. @or0ing overtime respondent was a$le to fnis! t!e appellant-s $rief a!ead of its
deadline so !e advised t!e complainant a$o"t its completion wit! t!e re:"est t!at
t!e remaining $alance of >OG)).)) $e paid. Complainant paid >F))).)) only
promising to pay t!e >*G)).)) .tomorrow1 or on .later partic"lar date.1 >lease
ta0e note t!at at t!is ="nct"re t!ere was already a $reac! of t!e agreement on
complainant-s part.
G. @!en t!at .tomorrow1 or on a .later partic"lar date1 came respondent t!r" a
messenger re:"ested t!e complainant to pay t!e >*G)).)) as promised $"t word
was sent t!at !e will again pay .tomorrow1 or on .later date.1 #!is promise;non;
payment cycle went on repeatedly "ntil t!e last day of t!e fling of t!e $rief. >lease
ta0e note again t!at it was not t!e respondent $"t t!e complainant w!o sets t!e
date w!en !e will pay yet fails to pay as promisedP
N. 2ven wit!o"t $eing paid completely respondent of !is own free will and accord
fled complainant-s $rief on timeP
O. After t!e $rief was fled respondent tried to collect from t!e complainant t!e
remaining $alance of >*G)).)) $"t t!e latter made !imself scarce. As t!e records
wo"ld s!ow s"c! >*G)).)) remains "npaid "ntil nowP
(. %ensing t!at somet!ing was amiss respondent sent t!e Fe$r"ary 2( 199* note
and case folder to t!e complainant !oping t!at t!e latter wo"ld see personally t!e
former a$o"t it to settle t!e matter $etween t!emP
9. 'owever instead of seeing t!e respondent complainant fled t!is caseP
1). 4espondent was constrained to fle !is wit!drawal wit! t!e Co"rt of Appeals
$eca"se of t!is case to avoid f"rt!er mis"nderstanding since !e was t!e one w!o
signed t!e appellant-s $rief alt!o"g! Atty. 3erona was !is co"nsel of record. %"c!
wit!drawal was accordingly granted $y t!e appellate co"rtP
&&& &&& &&&.Y1ZYFZ
4espondent co"nsel f"rt!er averred t!at complainant-s ref"sal to pay t!e agreed
lawyer-s fees measly as it was was deli$erate and in $ad fait!P !ence !is
wit!drawal as co"nsel was .="st et!ical and proper.1 4espondent co"nsel concl"ded
t!at not only was t!e penalty of s"spension !ars! for !is act of merely trying to
collect payment for !is services rendered $"t it indirectly wo"ld p"nis! !is family
since !e was t!e sole $readwinner wit! c!ildren in sc!ool and !is wife terminally ill
wit! cancer.
/n its 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129 dated Ccto$er 2G 199O t!e /+> denied Atty.
5ealca-s motion for reconsideration to wit:
&&&
42%CL825 #C 527B Atty. 5ealca-s Iotion For 4econsideration of t!e +oard-s
5ecision in t!e a$ove;entitled case t!ere $eing no s"$stantive reason to reverse t!e
fnding t!erein. Ioreover t!e motion is improperly laid t!e remedy of t!e
respondent is to fle t!e appropriate pleading wit! t!e %"preme Co"rt wit!in ffteen
(1G) days from receipt of notice of said 5ecision p"rs"ant to %ec. 12 YcZ of 4"le 1*9;
+.Y1ZYGZ
Cn 5ecem$er 1) 199O t!is Co"rt noted t!e following pleadings fled in t!e present
complaint
(a) notice and a copy of 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1GF dated H"ly 2N 199O of t!e
/ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines amending t!e recommendation of t!e /nvestigating
Commissioner of reprimand to t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension of respondent from t!e
practice of law for !aving $een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic
confdence regarding !is d"ty as a lawyerP
($) complainant-s motion for praying for t!e imposition of t!e ma&im"m penalty of
dis$armentP
(c) motion dated %eptem$er 1G 199O of respondent for reconsideration of t!e
aforesaid resol"tion of H"ly 2N 199OP
(d) commentAopposition of respondent praying t!at t!e motion for t!e imposition of
t!e ma&im"m penalty $e deniedP
(e) comment of complainant praying t!at t!e penalty of t!ree (*) mont!s
s"spension for t!e practice of law as recommended $y t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e
>!ilippines p"rs"ant to 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1GF $e raised to a !eavier penaltyP
(f) commentAmanifestationAopposition of complainant praying t!at t!e respondent
$e dis$arredP and
(g) re=oinder of respondent praying t!at t!is case $e dismissed for $eing $aseless.
Y1ZYNZ
and referred t!e same to t!e /+> for eval"ation and report.
/n compliance t!erewit! on Iarc! 2( 199( t!e /+> iss"ed 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9(;F2
referring t!e a$ove;entitled case to Commissioner 8i$ar for eval"ation report and
recommendation .in view of t!e Iotion for 4econsideration granted $y t!e %"preme
Co"rt.1
#!e /nvestigating Commissioner after referring t!e case recommended t!at !is
original recommendation of t!e imposition of t!e penalty of reprimand $e
maintained noting t!at respondent co"nsel !ad served t!e /+> well as >resident of
t!e %orsogon C!apter.Y1ZYOZ Accordingly on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999 t!e /+> +oard of
3overnors iss"ed t!e following resol"tion:
42%CLE#/C7 7C. [///;99;F(
&&&
42%CL825 to A5C># and A>>4C82 as it is !ere$y A5C>#25 and A>>4C825 t!e
4eport and 4ecommendation of t!e /nvestigating Commissioner in t!e a$ove;
entitled case !erein made part of t!is 4esol"tionA5ecision as Anne& .A1P and
fnding t!e recommendation f"lly s"pported $y t!e evidence on record and t!e
applica$le laws and r"les t!e Iotion for 4econsideration $e granted and t!at t!e
penalty of 42>4/IA75 earlier recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner $e
imposed on Atty. H"an %. 5ealca.Y1ZY(Z
Complainant as0ed t!e /+> to reconsider t!e foregoing resol"tion $"t t!e motion
was denied.Y1ZY9Z
Cn April 1) 2))) complainant fled wit! t!is Co"rt a petition for review on
certiorari in connection wit! Administrative Case 7o. F21G against t!e /+> and
respondent co"nsel averring t!at t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors committed grave
a$"se of discretion w!en it overt"rned its earlier resol"tion and granted respondent
co"nsel-s motion for reconsideration on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999. 'e claimed t!at t!e
earlier resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration iss"ed on Ccto$er 2G
199O !ad already $ecome fnal and e&ec"toryP !ence any f"rt!er action or motion
s"$se:"ent to s"c! fnal and e&ec"tory ="dgment s!all $e n"ll and void.
@!en t!e Co"rt iss"ed t!e resol"tion of 5ecem$er 1) 199O treating t!e several
pleadings fled in t!e present complaint it s!o"ld $e noted t!at t!e /+> resol"tion
denying respondent-s motion for reconsideration (4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129) dated
Ccto$er 2G 199O for some reason !ad not yet reac!ed t!is Co"rt. As of t!at date
t!e only /+> resol"tion attac!ed to t!e records of t!e case was 4esol"tion 7o. [//;
9O;GF amending t!e administrative sanction from reprimand to t!ree mont!s
s"spension. 'ence at t!e time t!e pleadings were referred $ac0 to t!e /+> in t!e
same resol"tion t!e Co"rt was not aware t!at t!e /+> !ad already disposed of t!e
motion for reconsideration fled $y respondent co"nsel.
#!"s w!en t!e /+> was informed of t!e said Co"rt resol"tion it constr"ed t!e same
as granting Atty. 5ealca-s motion for reconsideration and as an order for /+> to
cond"ct a re;eval"ation of t!e case. #!e /+> ass"med t!at its resol"tion of Ccto$er
2G 199O was already considered $y t!is Co"rt w!en it referred t!e case $ac0 to t!e
/+>. /t failed to notice t!at its resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration was
not among t!ose pleadings and resol"tion referred $ac0 to it.
'ence on t!e strengt! of t!is Co"rt-s resol"tion w!ic! it !ad inadvertently
misconstr"ed t!e /+> cond"cted a re;eval"ation of t!e case and came "p wit! t!e
assailed resol"tion now so"g!t to $e reversed. #!e Co"rt !olds t!at t!e error is not
attri$"ta$le to t!e /+>. /t is regretta$le t!at t!e proced"ral infrmity alleged $y
complainant act"ally arose from a mere oversig!t w!ic! was attri$"ta$le to neit!er
party.
3oing into t!e merits we aKrm t!e fndings made $y t!e /+> t!at complainant
engaged t!e services of respondent lawyer only for t!e preparation and s"$mission
of t!e appellant-s $rief and t!e attorney-s fees was paya$le "pon t!e completion
and s"$mission of t!e appellant-s $rief and not "pon t!e termination of t!e case.
#!ere is s"Kcient evidence w!ic! indicates complainant-s willingness to pay t!e
attorney-s fees. As agreed "pon complainant paid !alf of t!e fees in t!e amo"nt of
>OG)).)) "pon acceptance of t!e case. And w!ile t!e remaining $alance was not
yet d"e as it was agreed to $e paid only "pon t!e completion and s"$mission of t!e
$rief complainant nonet!eless delivered to respondent lawyer >F))).)) as t!e
latter demanded. #!is notwit!standing Atty. 5ealca wit!drew !is appearance
simply $eca"se of complainant-s fail"re to pay t!e remaining $alance of >*G)).))
w!ic! does not appear to $e deli$erate. #!e sit"ation was aggravated $y
respondent co"nsel-s note to complainant wit!drawing as co"nsel w!ic! was
co"c!ed in impolite and ins"lting lang"age.Y1ZY1)Z
3iven t!e a$ove circ"mstances was Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct ="st and properL
@e fnd Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct "n$ecoming of a mem$er of t!e legal profession.
Ender Canon 22 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility lawyer s!all wit!draw !is
services only for good ca"se and "pon notice appropriate in t!e circ"mstances.
Alt!o"g! !e may wit!draw !is services w!en t!e client deli$erately fails to pay t!e
fees for t!e servicesY1ZY11Z "nder t!e circ"mstances of t!e present case Atty.
5ealca-s wit!drawal was "n="stifed as complainant did not deli$erately fail to pay
!im t!e attorney-s fees. /n fact complainant e&erted !onest e,orts to f"lfll !is
o$ligation. 4espondent-s contempt"o"s cond"ct does not spea0 well of a mem$er of
t!e $ar considering t!at t!e amo"nt owing to !im was only >*G)).)). 4"le 2).F of
Canon 2) mandates t!at a lawyer s!all avoid controversies wit! clients concerning
!is compensation and s!all resort to ="dicial action only to prevent imposition
in="stice or fra"d. %adly for not so large a s"m owed to !im $y complainant
respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance wit! t!e demands of t!e Code.
#!e Co"rt !owever does not agree wit! complainant-s contention t!at t!e
ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment s!o"ld $e imposed on respondent lawyer. #!e
power to dis$ar m"st $e e&ercised wit! great ca"tion. Cnly in a clear case of
miscond"ct t!at serio"sly a,ects t!e standing and c!aracter of t!e lawyer as an
oKcer of t!e Co"rt and mem$er of t!e $ar will dis$arment $e imposed as a penalty.
/t s!o"ld never $e decreed w!ere a lesser penalty s"c! as temporary s"spension
wo"ld accomplis! t!e end desired.Y1ZY12Z /n t!e present case reprimand is deemed
s"Kcient.
@'242FC42 in view of t!e foregoing respondent Atty. H"an %. 5ealca is
42>4/IA7525 wit! a warning t!at repetition of t!e same act will $e dealt wit! more
severely.
%C C452425.
C+A75C 8. F/3E24A%
1( Han. 2)))
Facts
:/n a civil case 5 fled a motion to dismiss and t!is was granted. > claimed t!at
t!emotion to dismiss is invalid since at t!e time of fling Atty. B no longer
represented 5.
/ss"e
:@!et!er or not Atty. B ceased to $e 5-s co"nsel
'eld
:7o. 4epresentation contin"es "ntil t!e co"rt dispenses wit! t!e services of co"nsel
inaccordance wit! %ec. 2N 4"le 1*(. Co"nsel may $e validly s"$stit"ted only if t!e
followingre:"isites are complied wit!: (1) new co"nsel fles a written application for
s"$stit"tionP (2) t!eclient-s written consent is o$tainedP and (*) t!e written consent
of t!e lawyer to $e s"$stit"ted issec"red if it can still $eP if t!e written consent can
no longer $e o$tained t!en t!e applicationfor s"$stit"tion m"st carry proof t!at
notice of t!e motion !as $een served on t!e attorney to $es"$stit"ted in t!e
manner re:"ired $y t!e r"les.
C+A75C 8. F/3E24A%
1( Han. 2)))
Facts
:/n a civil case 5 fled a Iotion to 5ismiss on t!e gro"nd t!at > lost !is capacity to
s"ed"ring t!e pendency of t!e case. > assailed t!e motion saying t!at it was too
late since > !adalready fnis!ed presenting !is evidence.
/ss"e
:@!et!er t!e motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e granted
'eld
:Bes. #!e period to fle a motion to dismiss depends "pon t!e circ"mstances of t!e
case.%ec. 1 of 4"le 1N re:"ires t!at in general a motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e fled
wit!in t!ereglementary period for fling a responsive pleading. +"t t!e co"rt allows
a defendant to fle amotion to dismiss on t!e ,. gro"nds: (1) lac0 of ="risdictionP (2)
litis pendentiaP (*) lac0 of ca"seof actionP and (F) discovery d"ring trial of evidence
t!at wo"ld constit"te a gro"nd for dismissal.