RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.

Mendoza, J:
Facts:
Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patentand gross
neglect in the handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water District.The complainant imputed that the
respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing nor seek apostponement, for which reason the trial court considered
respondent to have waived further presentation of hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his exhibits. However,
respondent failed to formally offer his exhibits,prompting the trial court to order the dismissal of the case. The respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal however he did not file his motion within the reglementary period.
He even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from Manila as
their last witness. The truthwas that complainants sister had already testified.The respondent submitted his Answer and
averred that the complaint filed against him was baseless, purelymalicious and speculative considering the fact that it was
not made under oath. He contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first counsel had withdrawn and
he had no knowledge of what had happened inthe case before he handled it because complainant did not furnish him with
the records and stenographic notes of theprevious proceedings despite his repeated requests. He alleged that he failed to
formally offer the exhibits becausecomplainant tried to take over the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more
witnesses who failed toappear during trial.The Office of the Bar Confidant submitted a report finding respondent guilty of
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending his suspension.The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines also submitted a report and recommendation for the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or
nonfeasance would be binding on his client. A lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmostprudence and capability in
that representation.The respondents attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant due to the
lattersfailure to turn over to him records and stenographic notes of the case only highlights his incompetence
andinadequacy in handling the complainants case.The respondent Atty. Novero is found guilty of neglect of his clients
case and is Suspended from thepractice of law for one (1) month with Warning that repetition of the same negligent act will
be dealt with even moreseverely
105 ROLLON v NAVALFACTS

ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case
filed againsther (Collection of Sum of Money)
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
2
nd
Sem 2005-2006

After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLONS lawyer and required her to
payP8,000 as filing and partial service fee

As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY
NARAVALtold the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy

After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY
NARAVAL forfailure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement

ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and
the P8,000paid by ROLLON because he has no money

ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City

INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15
and 18

IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18
and restitution of P8,000
I S S U E W / N A T T Y N A R A V A L S H O U L D
B E R E P R I M A N D E D H E L D Y E S , F O R V I O L AT I O N O F R U L
E 1 5 . 0 5 A N D C A N O N S 1 6 , 1 7 & 1 8 RATIO

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish
tobecome their client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not
in aposition to carry it out effectively and competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys
are requiredby the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
devotion.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelityto a clients cause. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence.Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, their clientswould be prejudiced.

In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal
service toROLLON and despite ROLLONS repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files
of the case that hadbeen entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him

Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid
opinion on themerits and status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided
against her and hadlong become final executory. However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital
information from ROLLON and evendemanded P8,000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her
case would be acted upon.
JUDGMENT

Atty. Camilo Naraval is found

GUILTY
of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon hisreceipt of
this Decision. Furthermore, he is
ORDERED TO RESTITUTE,
within thirty (30) days from notice of thisDecision, complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus
interest thereon, at the rate of six percent perannum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid.
6 NAKPIL v VALDES
Facts:

Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran, Baguio. He went into an agreement
with Atty.Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the property in trust for Nakpil.

Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. The lands titles were transferred to his name.

When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of Valdes and his accounting and
law firmsfor the settlement of the estate of Jose Nakpil.


What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets of Jose Nakpil (he
actuallytransferred the property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation) while including the loans
he contracted.

What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. While the case was pending, Imelda also
filed anadministrative complaint for disbarment against Valdes.

The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. The CA reversed the CFI.

The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor of Nakpil. The SC held that
Valdesonly held the lots in trust for Nakpil.Issue:

W/n Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely:
o
Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil;
o
Including his loans as claims on the estate; and
o
Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting firm prepared the list of claims
of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his
lawfirm.Held:

The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year.

The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust reposed on him by Imelda
Nakpilwhen the latter agreed to use his professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear
that JoseNakpil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the property in trust for
Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the estate and including the loans he contracted (and used
for his own benefit) asclaims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him (they had a
close relationship since the50s), which was the basis for Imeldas decision to use his services.

As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests which is proscribed
byCanon 15 Rule 15.03. In the case at bar, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of
its
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
creditors are adverse to each other. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of assets and
liabilities of theestate and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is
clearly a conflictbetween the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two
claimants who are creditors of the estate

105 ROLLON v NAVALFACTS

ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case
filed againsther (Collection of Sum of Money)
Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
2
nd
Sem 2005-2006

After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLONS lawyer and required her to
payP8,000 as filing and partial service fee

As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY
NARAVALtold the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy

After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY
NARAVAL forfailure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement

ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and
the P8,000paid by ROLLON because he has no money

ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City

INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15
and 18

IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18
and restitution of P8,000
I S S U E W / N A T T Y N A R A V A L S H O U L D
B E R E P R I M A N D E D H E L D Y E S , F O R V I O L AT I O N O F R U L
E 1 5 . 0 5 A N D C A N O N S 1 6 , 1 7 & 1 8 RATIO

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish
tobecome their client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not
in aposition to carry it out effectively and competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys
are requiredby the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost
devotion.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelityto a clients cause. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and
competence.Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, their clientswould be prejudiced.

In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal
service toROLLON and despite ROLLONS repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files
of the case that hadbeen entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him

Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid
opinion on themerits and status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided
against her and hadlong become final executory. However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital
information from ROLLON and evendemanded P8,000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her
case would be acted upon.
JUDGMENT


Atty. Camilo Naraval is found
GUILTY
of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon hisreceipt of
this Decision. Furthermore, he is
ORDERED TO RESTITUTE,
within thirty (30) days from notice of thisDecision, complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus
interest thereon, at the rate of six percent perannum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid
108 MILLARE v MONTERO
Millare v MonteroFacts:

This is a disbarment proceeding against Atty. Montero

Pacifica Millare, the mother of complainant, obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered
Co tovacate the premises subject of the ejectment case.

Co, through Montero as counsel, appealed the decision to the RTC. She neither filed a supersedeas
bond nor paidthe rentals adjudged by the MTC. Thus the appeal was dismissed.

The CA also dismissed Cos appeal from the RTC decision for failure to comply with BP Blg. 129 and with
theInterim Rules and Guidelines. According to CA, Co should have filed a petition for review and not an
ordinaryappeal.

After the dismissal, the judgment of the MTC had already become final and executory. However, Cos
counselfiled four more defective and dilatory petitions before the RTC, CA, and SC for the purpose of
delaying theexecution of judgment by MTC.Issue: W/N Millare should be disbarred for violating Canons
12 and 19Held: Montero is suspended for one year.

Canon 19 requires a lawyer to represent his clients within the bounds of the law. He must employ only fair
andhonest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. He must not allow his client to dictate the
procedure inhandling the case. In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.

The appeal from MTC to RTC was sufficient to protect Cos interest and fully ventilate her defenses.

Montero is also guilty of forum shopping, considering the number of actions he filed

128 DALISAY v MAURICIO

Facts:

This is the case against Batas Mauricio, the TV host.

Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorneys fees but did not take any action on
ValerinaDalisays case.

Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.

In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be
acombination of the ff:
o

Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay
incash.
o
P3,000.00 as appearance fee

notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. She terminated their
attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused.

The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.Issue:

W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed.

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C

LEGAL ETHICS
2
nd
Sem 2005-2006
Held:

No. He should be suspended for 6 months.When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it
was understood that he agreed to take up thelatters case and that an attorney-client relationship between
them was established. From then on, it was expected of himto serve complainant with competence and
attend to her case with fidelity, care and devotion.

But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record.He did not even
follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services.Regarding the
P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases):
there was no evidence nor any pleadingssubmitted to show that respondent filed any
case considering that the filing fee had to be paidsimultaneously with the filing of a case.

when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his
rights.

Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he should
chargeonly a reasonable amount of fees.
102 EDQUIBAL v FERRER
FACTS:Edquibal charged Atty Ferrer with professional misconduct and neglect of duty.Edquibal engaged
the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his sister Delia involving
acertain property. In one of the cases, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his mother. Atty
Ferrer then advisedcomplainant to appeal to the CA and that the cost involved is P4,000. When
complainant Edquibal informed respondentAtty Ferrer that he does not have enough money, Atty ferrer
said P2,000 is sufficient.Edquibal followed up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was
dismissed for failure to file the requiredappelant's brief.Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed
an appeal. He claimed that he never agreed to handle the appeal.ISSUE:W/n Atty Ferrer is guilty of
professional misconduct...HELD: YES. Records show that respondnet was the counsel of record for
Edquibal. The resolution of the CA clearly states that the"notice sent to counsel for defendants-appelants
requiring him to file appelants brief wihtin 45 days from receipt thereof,was received by him...". However,
respondent failed to file the appellants' brief despite receipt of such notice. Sec2 rule44 of the Rules of
CivPro provides that the counsel of the parties in the court of origin shall be considered their counsel inthe

CA.If it were true that Atty Ferrer did not agree to represent Edquibals, why did he not file with the CA a
motion to withdraw astheir counsel? The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence. All that
is required is ordinary diligenceexpected of a bonus pater familias.Suspended for 3 mos.
FERNANDO MARTIN PENA
vs.
ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIOA.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007Facts:

Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel f o r G r a c e C . H u f a n a i n a n i l l e g a l

d i s m i s s a l c a s e b e f o r e t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s C o m m i s s i o n (NLRC) against
complainant Fernando Martin Pena.Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, but Pena
rejected the claim as baseless.

Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter

reiteratingh i s c l i e n t ' s c l a i m f o r s e p a r a t i o n p a y. T h r o u g h h i s letter, he threatened
complainant that should Penafail to pay the amounts they propose as
settlement,h e w o u l d f i l e a n d c l a i m b i g g e r a m o u n t s i n c l u d i n g moral damages, as well as
multiple charges such
ast a x e v a s i o n , f a l s i f i c a t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s , a n d c a n c e l l a t i o n o f b u s i n e s s l i c
e n s e t o o p e r a t e d u e t o violations of laws.
Issue:

WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of theCPR, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client
withzeal within the bounds of the law?
YES

NB:
Rule 19.01.
A lawyer shall employ
only f a i r a n d h o n e s t m e a n s t o a t t a i n t h e l a w f u l o b j e c t i v e s o f h i s
c l i e n t a n d s h a l l n o t p r e s e n t , participate in presenting or threaten to
present u n f o u n d e d c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t o o b t a i n a n improper advantage in any case
or proceeding."

WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio?

NO,reprimand onlyHeld:

U n d e r C a n o n 1 9 , a l a w y e r s h o u l d n o t f i l e o r threaten to file any unfounded

or baseless criminalcase or cases against the adversaries of his
clientd e s i g n e d t o s e c u r e l e v e r a g e t o c o m p e l t h e a d v e r s a r i e s t o y i e l d o
r w i t h d r a w t h e i r o w n c a s e s against the lawyer's client.

In the case at bar, the threats are not

onlyu n e t h i c a l f o r v i o l a t i n g C a n o n 1 9 , b u t t h e y a l s o amount to
blackmail
.
Blackmail is "the extortion of m o n e y f r o m a p e r s o n b y t h r e a t s o f a c c u s a t i o n
o r e x p o s u r e o r o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e p u b l i c p r i n t s , obtaining of value from a person
as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret
calculated to operate to his prejudice."
The letter in this case contains more than j u s t a s i m p l e d e m a n d t o p a y. I t e v e n c o n t a i n s
a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainantwhich have nothing to do with his client's
claim for s e p a r a t i o n p a y. I n d e e d , l e t t e r s o f t h i s n a t u r e a r e definitely proscribed by the
Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

It was not respondent's intention to point o u t c o m p l a i n a n t ' s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e

l a w a s h e s o gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even containsan implied promise to
"keep silent"
about the saidv i o l a t i o n s i f p a y m e n t o f t h e c l a i m i s m a d e o n t h e date indicated.

DECISION:
While the writing of the
letter w e n t b e y o n d e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s , w e h o l d t h a t disbarment is too severe a
penalty to be imposed onrespondent, considering that he wrote the same
outo f h i s o v e r z e a l o u s n e s s t o p r o t e c t h i s c l i e n t ' s interests. Accordingly, the more
appropriate penaltyis
reprimand.