Francisco vs atty portugal

The Court also rejects respondents claim that there was no formal engagement between the parties and that he
made all his efforts for the case without adequate and proper consideration. In the words of then Justice Panganiban
(presently Chief Justice) in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta:20
After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client
never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty
of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.21
Also to the point is another case where this Court ruled, thus:
A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received
in any matter pertinent to his profession. x x x 22
Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to defend, his obligation embodied in
the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility still remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of
fervor in handling the case should neither diminish nor cease just because of his perceived insufficiency of
remuneration.
Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the shooting incident that the
accused was engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the accused police officers who had been convicted of
[h]omicide for the salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and [a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C.
Macato."23 Rule 14.0124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to discriminate clients
as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic that it is the defense counsel that actually branded his own
clients as being the culprits that "salvaged" the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is
unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the Sandiganbayan had not done so.
In re: Atty Adriano
Here, we have a clear case of an attorney whose acts exhibit willful dis-obedience of lawful orders of this Court. A
cause sufficient is thus present for suspension or disbarment.[[9]] Counsel has received no less than three
resolutions of this Court requiring compliance of its orders. To be recalled is that on September 25, 1967, this Court
directed him, in ten days from notice, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his
failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the time therefor. Nothing was done by counsel for over a year. To
impress upon counsel the gravity of his repeated failure to obey this Court's orders, on October 3,1968, a fine of
P500 was clamped upon him. He was directed to pay that fine in ten days. He was in that order also required to file
his brief in fifteen days. He was warned that more drastic disciplinary action would be taken upon his failure to do
either. Still he remained unmoved. Then, this Court issued the peremptory order of December 5, 1968 commanding
him to show cause within ten days from notice thereof why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office. The Court made it certain that this order would reach him. He
personally acknowledged receipt thereof. He has not paid the fine. He has done nothing.
This is 1969. No brief has as yet been filed. And this, inspite of the fact that as early as March 27, 1967, when he
moved for a fourth extension of time to file his brief de oficio, he represented to this Court that all that was needed
was to redraft and to rehash some significant portions of the brief which was almost through and to have the same
stencilled and mimeographed upon completion of a definitive text.
Disrespect is here present. Contumacy is as patent. Disciplinary action is in order.
Controlling here is the 1961 decision In the Matter of Atty. Filoteo Dianala Jo. [[10]] There, as here, counsel failed to
file appellant's brief (in a criminal case) despite extensions of time granted him by this Court. Likewise, this Court
issued a show-cause order why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The explanation was considered
unsatisfactory. This Court imposed a fine of P50 payable in ten days from notice. Attorney Dianala Jo did not pay
that fine. Came the subsequent resolution of this Court advising him to pay the fine, otherwise, he would be
arrested and confined to jam. This warning was not heeded. On November 18, 1960, the Court resolved to give him
ten days from notice within which to explain why he should not be suspended from the practice of law. Despite
receipt of this notice, he did not care to explain his behaviour which this Court considered as "consumacy and
unwillingness to comply with the lawful orders of this Court of which he is an officer or to conduct himself as a
lawyer should, in violation of his oath of office." He was suspended from the practice of law for three months.

In the present case, counsel's pattern of conduct, it would seem to us, reveals a propensity on the part of counsel to
benumb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the courtesy and respect that should be accorded
this Court.
For the reasons given, we vote to suspend Attorney Lope E. Adriano from the practice of law throughout the
Philippines for a period of one (1) year.
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal record, in this Court, of Lope E. Adriano as member of the
Bar. So ordered.
Perez vs atty de la torre
There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do
anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection.4
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. In
the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients case, including
the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.5
To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his legal services to accused Avila and Ilo but it
was the two accused who sought his assistance in executing their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he
acceded to their request to act as counsel after apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being
convinced that the accused were under no compulsion to give their confession.
The excuse preferred by the respondent does not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Canoy vs atty Ortiz
Still, the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a
manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the
adverse party, and until then, the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.
Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave
complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged
shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no
further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the services of another counsel.
Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of
litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal
practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not mitigate the
dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to deviate
from the norm in this case.
Ma luisa hadjula vs aty madianda
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal
advise regarding the former's business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client
employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion.
It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted
did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.
It a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the
professional employments is established.

Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and
the complainant or the non-payment of the former's fees.
Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege communication,
viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3)
the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his
instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except the
protection be waived.7
Hornilla vs atty salamat
RULE 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue
or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be
opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection.Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.
Gonzales vs atty cabucana
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus,
there could be no conflict of interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which
represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against representing conflicting interests
applies.
As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. David:[31]
[W]e can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of the party who had sought and obtained legal
advice from his firm; this, not necessarily to prevent any injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above reproach the
honor and integrity of the courts and of the bar. Without condemning the respondents conduct as dishonest,
corrupt, or fraudulent, we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly inexpedient. It had the tendency to
bring the profession, of which he is a distinguished member, into public disrepute and suspicion and undermine
the integrity of justice.[32]
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest intention will also not exculpate him as
such claim does not render the prohibition inoperative.
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses as no other lawyer is willing to take their
case cannot prosper as it is settled that while there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation
they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one.[34]
Granting also that there really was no other lawyer who could handle the spouses case other than him, still he
should have observed the requirements laid down by the rules by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client then seek the written consent
of all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.[35] These respondent failed to do thus exposing himself to the
charge of double-dealing.
We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we are not bound by such desistance as the
present case involves public interest.[36] Indeed, the Courts exercise of its power to take cognizance of
administrative cases against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to
protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession.[37]
In
similar cases where the respondent was found guilty of representing conflicting interests a penalty ranging from
one to three years suspension was imposed.
Lim vs atty villarosa
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel.
[45] Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily mean conformity to respondents
desire to withdraw as counsel. Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs.
Jalandoni find no support in the records of this case.
Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as counsel[46] would be granted by the court.
Yet, he stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandonis counsel beginning April 28, 1999, the first hearing date. No order

from the court was shown to have actually granted his motion for withdrawal. Only an order dated June 4, 1999 had
a semblance of granting his motion:
When this case was called for hearing Atty. Lorenzo Alminaza appeared for the defendants considering that Atty.
Nicanor Villarosa has already withdrawn his appearance in this case which the Court considered it to be approved as
it bears the conformity of the defendants.[47] (emphasis ours)

That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminazas professional engagement on her behalf despite
respondents withdrawal did not absolve the latter of the consequences of his unprofessional conduct, specially in
view of the conflicting interests already discussed. Respondent himself stated that his withdrawal from Civil Case
No. 97-9865 was due to the possibility of a conflict of interest.[48]
Be that as it may, the records do not support the claim that respondent improperly collected P5,000 from
petitioner. Undoubtedly, respondent provided professional services to Lumot A. Jalandoni. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that the documents belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni were deliberately withheld. The right of an attorney to
retain possession of a clients documents, money or other property which may have lawfully come into his
possession in his professional capacity, until his lawful fees and disbursements have been fully paid, is wellestablished.[49]
Rollon vs atty naraval
Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their clients money and property that may come into their possession.[19] As
respondent obviously did nothing on the case of complainant, the amount she had given -- as evidenced by the
receipt issued by his law office -- was never applied to the filing fee. His failure to return her money upon demand
gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had
reposed in him.[20] His failure to do so constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession.[21]
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts,[22] but also mandates
the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their
fiduciary relationship.[23] Respondent clearly fell short of the demands required of him as a member of the bar. His
inability to properly discharge his duty to his client makes him answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to
the legal profession, and to the general public.[24] Given the crucial importance of his role in the administration of
justice, his misconduct diminished the confidence of the public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.
Yu vs bondat
On the alleged failure of respondent to appear during the hearing of I.S. No. 2000-G-22087-88 and his failure to
present the original of the checks subject thereof, they being then in the possession of complainant who was
abroad at that time:[33] Such failure to present the original of the checks cannot solely be attributed to respondent,
for she herself was guilty of neglect.[34]
As for the alleged compulsion in the settlement of her two complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in accordance with
the terms dictated by the therein respondents Mona Lisa San Juan and Elizabeth Chan Ong, upon the promise of
respondent that he would waive the 10% success fee in the complaint to be filed against Swire Development:
Assuming the truthfulness of her allegation that respondent compelled her to settle, what the terms were as alleged
to have been dictated by Ms. San Juan and Ms. Chan Ong, and the manner and/or extent of prejudice she suffered,
complainant did not establish. Moreover, she failed to show that the promise by respondent that he would waive
the 10% success fee was for the purpose of defrauding her or of such nature as to constitute undue influence,
thereby depriving her of reasonable freedom of choice.
Subsequent to the amicable settlement, it appears that complainant never raised any objection to the terms of the
compromise. As an accepted rule, when a client, upon becoming aware of the compromise and the judgment
thereon, fails to promptly repudiate the action of his attorney, he will not afterwards be heard to complain about it.
[35]
As for complainants claim that the amount of P51,716.54, which was the only amount on record that complainant
paid for respondents legal services, was intended for the filing fees in the complaint against Swire Development
Corporation, the same was not substantiated as in fact the retainer agreement does not so confirm.

We would like to thank you for retaining our law firm in the handling and representation of your case. In regard to
the five cases you referred to us, our aggregate Acceptance fee is P200,000 Pesos with an Appearance fee of
P1,500.00 Pesos per hearing. As regards the damages to be recovered, we will get 10% thereof by way of Success
Fee.[36] (Underscoring supplied)
If, admittedly, the only payment given to complainant by respondent is the amount of P51,716.54, then
complainant still owes respondent more, as respondent rendered his legal services in 4 out of the 5 cases. An
acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid for
his efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation. That complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the
four cases does not render void the above retainer agreement for respondent appears to have represented the
interest of complainant. Litigants need to be reminded that lawyers are not demi-gods or magicians who can
always win their cases for their clients no matter the utter lack of merit of the same or how passionate the litigants
may feel about their cause.[37]
In sum, this Court finds well taken the finding of the Office of the Bar Confidant that complainant failed to establish
the guilt of respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The charges against him must thus be
dismissed.[38]
However, since respondent had been advised by complainant through counsel Chavez Laureta and Associates, by
letter of July 18, 2001, that she intended to terminate his services, as of said date, he was obliged, under Rule 22.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz:
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of
the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter,
Rural bank of calape vs atty florido
On 28 September 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.) submitted his report
and declared that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of law and
justice.[3] Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension from
the practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that the repetition of similar conduct in the future will
warrant a more severe penalty.
According to Commissioner Villadolid, Jr., respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could not
just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI without a valid court order. Commissioner Villadolid,
Jr. noted that the right to manage and gain majority control over RBCI was one of the issues pending before the trial
court in Civil Case No. 6628. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. said that respondent had no legal basis to implement the
take over of RBCI and that it was a naked power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever.
Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. added that the administrative complaint against respondent before the IBP is
independent of the dismissal and suspension of the criminal cases against respondent. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.
also noted that RBCI complied with the IBP Rules of Procedure when they filed a verified complaint and submitted
duly notarized affidavits. Moreover, both RBCI and respondent agreed to dispense with the mandatory conference
hearing and, instead, simultaneously submit their position papers.
On 20 March 2006, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVII-2006-120 which declared that
respondent dismally failed to live up to the exacting standards of the law profession and suspended respondent
from the practice of law for one year with a warning that repetition of similar conduct will warrant a more severe
penalty.[4]
On 5 July 2006, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 11 December 2008 Resolution, the IBP
denied respondents motion.[5]
The Ruling of the Court
We affirm the IBP Board of Governors resolution.

The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the
Constitution and obey the laws of the land.[6] Likewise, it is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and
legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal
system.[7]
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and
principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.
[8] It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing
an intentional wrong to their adversaries.[9]
We agree with Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.s conclusion:
Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking
their professional oath, they
become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as
representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients
interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they
are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made
within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of
justice.[10]
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.[11]
Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to
his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.[12]
dr.gamilla vs atty marino
The evidence on record proves that Atty. Mario failed to disclose at crucial moments significant information about
the manner by which he secured the P7,000,000.00 by virtue of the compromise agreement and the P4,200,000.00
attorneys fees under the memorandum of agreement. A simple accounting of the money that he and others
concerned received from UST, as well as an explanation on the details of the agreements, would have enlightened
the faculty members about the probability of conflict of interests on respondents part and guided them to look for
alternative actions to protect their own interests.
In light of the irrefragable fact of respondents misdemeanor, a possible mitigation of his actionable conduct was
that the attorneys fees and the compromise agreement were negotiated and finalized under the most strenuous
circumstances where his leadership and that of his core officers and directors were incessantly challenged by
complainants allegedly aided by factions within UST itself. He might also have believed that the settlement
achieved immense benefits for his constituents which would not have been otherwise obtained if he had chosen to
relinquish the rein of legal representation to some other lawyer. Finally, it was not improbable for him to suppose
though wrongly that he could represent and in some manner serve the interests of all of them, including his own, by
pushing for and seeking the approval of the agreements himself. [20]
We reiterate that the objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect
the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers
of the court. Restorative justice not retribution is our goal in this type of proceedings. In view of this, instead of
taking a more stern measure against respondent, a reprimand and a warning would be sufficient disciplinary action
in accordance with our ruling in Sumangil v. Sta. Romana.[21] Hence, Atty. Mario is admonished to refrain from all
appearances and acts of impropriety including circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all
times with circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor, fairness and
loyalty in all transactions with his client.
Atty Solomon vs atty frial
A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the courts order and
processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of attachment the court
issued.
Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the attached cars. He also allowed the
use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the

sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of them without so much as
informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.
For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in the custody of
the attached cars and grave misconduct. We must mention, at this juncture, that the victorious parties in the case
are not without legal recourse in recovering the Volvos value from Atty. Frial should they desire to do so.
The Court, nevertheless, is not inclined to impose, as complainant urges, the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
moral character of a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.[6] With the view we take of the case,
there is no compelling evidence tending to show that Atty. Frial intended to pervert the administration of justice for
some dishonest purpose.
Almandrez vs atty langit
Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of money representing the
monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful owner.
Respondent received the money in his capacity as counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money
in trust for complainant. The Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code") states:
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO
HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.03A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall
have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Respondent should have immediately notified complainant of the trial court's approval of the motion to withdraw
the deposited rentals. Upon release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over
them in connection with his legal services, provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not entitled
to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorney's
fees.10 In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had
to retain the money.
Respondent's failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latter's demands gives rise to the
presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal profession.11 More specifically, it
renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for contempt, as stated in Section 25, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court:
SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of
his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal
prosecution.
Additionally, respondent failed to observe Canon 1712 of the Code, which obligates the lawyer to take up the cause
of his client with entire zeal and devotion. It seems that after respondent received the withdrawn deposits, he never
contacted complainant again. He did not pursue the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the ejectment
case, to the prejudice of complainant. By his inaction, respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed in him.
For in agreeing to be complainant's counsel, respondent undertook to take all steps necessary to safeguard
complainant's interest in the case.
The misconduct of respondent is aggravated by his unjustified refusal to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to
file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory conference. Although
respondent did not appear at the conference, the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through a position
paper. Still, respondent ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant disrespect for authority. Indeed, he is justly
charged with conduct unbecoming a lawyer, for a lawyer is expected to uphold the law and promote respect for
legal processes.13 Further, a lawyer must observe and maintain respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial

officers and other duly constituted authorities,14 including the IBP. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court
has empowered the IBP to conduct proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys.
The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary, requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of
the attorney. Respondent miserably failed in this regard. Instead, he demonstrated a lack of integrity, care, and
devotion required by the legal profession from its members. Whenever a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of the public, this Court has the right and duty to withdraw his privilege as officer of the Court and
member of the Bar.15
Chua and hsia vs atty mesina
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with
utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings
with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at arms
length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of
the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of
wrongdoing is considered in an attorneys favor.35 (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of the Melencio property to complainants,
consideration of whether he should be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed for
the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the case at bar is moral fitness.37
In fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more specifically, the following canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
Dalisay vs atty Mauricio
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant
and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his
relationship with her.
Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This is because there is no truth to his claim that
he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00044. This brings us to the second reason why we cannot sustain his fourth argument. The pleadings show that he
learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was a
result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he
admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainants title only after the news of his suspension spread in the
legal community. To our mind, there is absurdity in invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact as justification for an
act or omission that is fait accompli.
Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant, respondent was motivated by vindictiveness.
In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his or her retainer.[12] It gives rise to a
relationship between an attorney and a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and
confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith.[13] If much is demanded from an
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the
client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor
not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps
maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.[14] Indeed, law is an exacting goddess demanding
of her votaries not only intellectual but also moral discipline.
Tarog vs atty ricafort
There is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion that respondent gravely abused
the confidence that complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds
of the sale of her property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for the
recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend money, time and energy therefor. Then, despite
his deliberate failure to answer the complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from the
judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the docket fee
despite notice. Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and agony of the complainant and to
enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter. Unsatisfied with what he had already unjustly and unlawfully
done to complainant, respondent issued checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of
what he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of what had been
validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him, respondent closed the account against which the checks

were drawn. There was deceit in this. Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the
fact that despite the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the obligation.
All the foregoing constituted grave and gross misconduct in blatant violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Respondents claim of good faith in closing his account because he thought complainant has already encashed all
checks is preposterous. The account was closed on or before 26 February 1996. He knew that there were still other
checks due on 29 February 1996 and 15 March 1996 which could not be encashed before their maturity dates.
By violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent diminished public
confidence in the law and the lawyers (Busios v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v. Villalon,
337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead of promoting such confidence and respect, he miserably failed to live up to the
standards of the legal profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694 [2000]; Ducat v. Villalon, supra).
Respondents act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of execution for money judgment rendered by
the trial court was a clear attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the checks despite
demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 showed his continued defiance of judicial processes,
which he, as an officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold.39
Bearing in mind his administrative record, and considering that the penalty for violation of Canon 16 ranges from
suspension for six months,40 to suspension for one year,41 to suspension for two years,42 depending on the
amount involved and the severity of the lawyers misconduct, we rule that disbarment is the commensurate
punishment for Atty. Ricafort, who has shown no reformation in his handling of trust funds for his clients.
Parinas vs atty paguinto
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his
acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to
handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case
entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a
lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients interests will suffer.[9] It
is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate
attention to his legal work.
The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his cases. A license to
practice law is a guarantee by the courts to the public that the licensee possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and
diligence to manage their cases.[10] The legal profession demands from a lawyer the vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family. And failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code.[12]
Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that he is not qualified to render. Rule
18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. He has
the duty to prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. Rule 18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence shall render him liable.
One last point. Parias executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal[13] of the complaint stating that she was withdrawing
the administrative complaint against Paguinto after realizing that said complaint against the respondent arose due
to misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding and miscommunication. Paguinto, on the other hand, submitted a
Manifestation and Motion apologizing to Parias for his actuations and admitting that he was solely to be blamed.
A compromise or withdrawal of charges does not terminate an administrative complaint against a lawyer,[14]
especially in this case where the lawyer admitted his misconduct.
De juan vs atty baria
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service
is entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion to his clients cause. It is the duty of a
lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the

bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise
his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action.[15]
Again, the Court held in the case of Santos v. Lazaro,[16] that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility[17] explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them
for handling shall render them liable.
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains counsel of record and
whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the
cold. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the
court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is
recorded in the case.[18] Respondent did not comply with these obligations.
Fernandez vs atty novero
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions, even malfeasance or nonfeasance, would be
binding on his client. Verily, a lawyer owes to the client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability in that
representation. Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and anyone
who deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but
also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause.[7]
Respondents attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant is apparent. His averment that
complainant failed to turn over to him the records and stenographic notes of the case only highlights his
incompetence and inadequacy in handling complainants case. Considering that respondent has been practicing
law for almost 15 years, he should have known that he could easily obtain a copy of the records and stenographic
notes from the court where the case was docketed.
Respondent likewise refers to the alleged obnoxious attitude of complainant in trying to manipulate the manner in
which he was handling the case as the main reason for his failure to formally offer his exhibits in contravention of
the order of the court. But respondent should bear in mind that while a lawyer owes utmost zeal and devotion to
the interest of his client, he also has the responsibility of employing only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and he should not allow the latter to dictate the procedure in handling the case.[8] As this
Court said in another case:
A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights.
He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in
accordance with the law. He must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his
clients cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer
should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public.[9]
As to the contention of respondent that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the complaint because the
letter-complaint was not verified, as required in Rule 139-B, 1 of the Rules of Court on Disbarment and Discipline of
Attorneys,[10] suffice it to say that such constitutes only a formal defect and does not affect the jurisdiction of the
Court over the subject matter of the complaint. The verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure
an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct the court may simply order the correction of
unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be
served
Barbuco vs atty beltran
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file
brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY
THREE (43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof
cannot serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law firm
composed of not just one lawyer. This is shown by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he
signed for and on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office. As such, respondent could have asked any
of his partners in the law office to file the Appellants Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of Time
to file the said pleading.

In B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] we ruled that the confusion in the office of the law firm
following the death of one of its partners is not a valid justification for failing to file the brief. We further ruled in the
said case that upon receipt of the notice to file the brief, the law firm should have re-assigned the case to another
associate.
The failure to timely file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent. Complainants
liability is further compounded by his failure to maintain an open line of communication with his client, in violation
of the provisions of Rule 18.04, which reads:
A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.
Clearly, respondents series of inadvertence prejudiced the case of the complainant. We can not overstress the
duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.[11]
Every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. A lawyers fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should
be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within the bounds of
the law. The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence and he should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[12]
Soriano vs atty reyes
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In this case, by reason
of Atty. Reyess negligence, complainant suffered actual loss. He should have given adequate attention, care and
time to his cases. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently handle.
Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyers oath.[23]
Respondents excuse that complainants, from the time of filing of the complaint up to the time of filing his
comment, were in continuous possession of the foreclosed property is flimsy. It only shows the cavalier attitude
which respondent took towards his clients cause.
Anent Civil Case No. 22-624-94, the case was indeed dismissed for failure to prosecute although the said dismissal
was later on reconsidered. However, this does not detract to the conclusion that, truly, respondent failed to
demonstrate the required diligence in handling the case of complainants.[24]
Quite apart from the above, respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his clients as he omitted to apprise
complainants of the status of the two cases and even assured the complainants that he was diligently attending to
said cases.[25]
In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,[26] this Court found therein respondent lawyer in bad faith for failing to inform his client of
the status of the case. In said decision, the court has adamantly stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is
highly fiduciary.[27] There is always a need for the client to receive from the lawyer periodic and full updates on
developments affecting the case. The lawyer should apprise the client on the mode and manner that the lawyer is
utilizing to defend the clients interests.[28]
In failing to inform his clients of the status of their cases, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence
as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such manners of professional employment.[29]
Time and again we have stated that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the
power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear
cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a
member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a
reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[30]
Somosot vs atty lara

The complainants failing in this regard is her failure to inform her counsel of her change of business address, a
serious lapse but one that a resourceful counsel could have easily handled. In a balancing, the greater fault still lies
with the respondent as he did not appear, based on the records of the case, to be a lawyer whose practice routine
included regular reporting to clients on matters other than billings. We note that he did not bother to report (or
even allege that he bothered to report) on the interrogatories and request for admission incidents that can make
or break a case as it did break the defendants case before the trial court. Despite knowledge of his clients location
gained in late December 2001, he did not likewise bother to inform the complainant of the adverse decision against
her in June 2002, taking it upon himself to simply file a motion for reconsideration and to accept the courts ruling
when his motion was denied. In our view, these are law practice mortal sins that we cannot allow to simply be
glossed over or be penalized by a simple reprimand.
However, we cannot also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in light of the complainants own
contributory faults. Disbarment is an ultimate remedy in the professional world, no less serious and weighty as the
power to impose reclusion perpetua in criminal cases; in both, recovery from the penalty although not totally
impossible is extremely difficult to attain. Thus, we must at all times act with caution and due consideration,
taking into account not only the interests of the immediate parties, but the interest of the public, the bar and the
administration of justice as well.
The general public must know that the legal profession is a closely regulated profession where transgressions merit
swift but commensurate penalties; it is a profession that they can trust because we guard our ranks and our
standards well. The Bar must sit up and take notice of what happened in this case to be able to guard against any
repetition of the respondents transgressions, particularly his failure to report the developments of an ongoing case
to his clients. Unless the Bar takes a pro-active stance, we cannot really blame members of the public who are not
very well disposed towards, and who may even distrust, the legal profession after hearing experiences similar to
what the complainant suffered. The administration of justice is served well when we demonstrate that effective
remedies exist to address the injustice and inequities that may result from transgressions by those acting in the
dispensation of justice process.
In these lights, we hold that while the respondent is liable for a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects his
standing and character as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar, this liability ought to be tempered by
the mitigating circumstances we pointed out above. We therefore cannot impose disbarment as penalty. Given the
mitigating circumstances and the extent of their effects on the respondents culpability, we hold that a three-month
suspension from the practice of law is the penalty that is more in keeping with the damage the complainant
suffered and the interests that the public, the bar and the administration of justice have to protect.
Pena vs atty aparicio
Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a
lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the
performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his client's claim and to take all the steps
necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. However, the
letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory
charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. The letter was
obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature
are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent cannot claim the sanctuary provided by the privileged communication rule under which a private
communication executed in the performance of a legal duty is not actionable. The privileged nature of the letter
was removed when respondent used it to blackmail complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the
demands of his client.
However, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment is too severe a
penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his
client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand.
Atty solidon vs atty macalalad
We consider, too, that other motivating factors specifically, the monetary consideration and the fixed period of
performance should have made it more imperative for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate
communication with his clients. He had been given initial payment and should have at least undertaken initial
delivery of his part of the engagement.

We further find that Atty. Macalalads conduct refutes his claim of willingness to perform his obligations. If Atty.
Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition, he could have acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to
enable him to file the petition even pending the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now
stand, he did not take any action to initiate communication. These omissions unequivocally point to Atty.
Macalalads lack of due care that now warrants disciplinary action.
In addition to the above finding of negligence, we also find
Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. In
this case, Atty. Macalalad did not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from Atty.
Solidon even after he failed to render any legal service within the contracted time of the engagement.[22]
Masmud vs nlrc
The retainer contract between Atty. Go and Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The contract shall control in
the determination of the amount to be paid, unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.[19]
Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice, decency or reasonableness.[20] The decree
of unconscionability or unreasonableness of a stipulated amount in a contingent fee contract will not preclude
recovery. It merely justifies the fixing by the court of a reasonable compensation for the lawyer's services.[21]
The criteria found in the Code of Professional Responsibility are also to be considered in assessing the proper
amount of compensation that a lawyer should receive. Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the said Code provides:
CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
(a)

The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

(b)

The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;

(c)

The importance of the subject matter;

(d)

The skill demanded;

(e)

The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;

(f)

The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs;

(g)

The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service;

(h)

The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i)

The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j)

The professional standing of the lawyer.

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients
may be protected from unjust charges.[22] The amount of contingent fees agreed upon by the parties is subject to
the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher
compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails.[23]
The Court finds nothing illegal in the contingent fee contract between Atty. Go and Evangelinas husband. The CA
committed no error of law when it awarded the attorneys fees of Atty. Go and allowed him to receive an equivalent
of 39% of the monetary award.

The issue of the reasonableness of attorney's fees is a question of fact. Well-settled is the rule that
conclusions and findings of fact of the CA are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for
strong and cogent reasons which are absent in the case at bench. The findings of the CA, which are supported by
substantial evidence, are almost beyond the power of review by the Supreme Court.[24]
Considering that Atty. Go successfully represented his client, it is only proper that he should receive adequate
compensation for his efforts. Even as we agree with the reduction of the award of attorney's fees by the CA, the fact
that a lawyer plays a vital role in the administration of justice emphasizes the need to secure to him his honorarium
lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much
entitled to judicial protection against injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client is against
abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is not alone to ensure that a lawyer acts in a proper and
lawful manner, but also to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting of his brains and with
his skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just
compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to secure justice for his client, he himself
would not get his due.[
Atty orocio vs angulam
The abovementioned case may be reasonably applied by analogy in the instant case since they have substantially
similar circumstances. In the case before us, although the non-EPIRA separated members were not illegally
dismissed, they were, nevertheless, separated from work by reason of EPIRA. In addition, the non-EPIRA separated
members had a legal retainer agreement/contingency fee contract with petitioner as their counsel.
It should also be emphasized that the practice of law is a profession not a moneymaking venture. A lawyer is not
merely the defender of his clients cause and a trustee of his clients cause of action and assets; he is also, and first
and foremost, an officer of the court and participates in the fundamental function of administering justice in society.
It follows that a lawyers compensation for professional services rendered is subject to the supervision of the court,
not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the services
rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his
attorneys oath as an officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority of the courts to regulate his right
to charge professional fees.[58]
Ramos vs atty ngaseo
In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation since the respondent only made a
written demand for its delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for delivery of the litigated
property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of
Article 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical, respondents act does not fall
within the purview of Article 1491. The letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after the judgment
in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became final and executory on January 18, 2002.
We note that the report of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No.
XVI-2003-47, does not clearly specify which acts of the respondent constitute gross misconduct or what provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility have been violated. We find the recommended penalty of suspension for 6
months too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed by the respondent. The power to disbar or
suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be
imposed as a penalty.[12] All considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient and reasonable.
Bun siong yao vs atty aurelio
It appears that the parties relationship was not just professional, but they are also related by affinity. The
disagreement between complainants wife and the respondent affected their professional relationship.
Complainants refusal to disclose certain financial records prompted respondent to retaliate by filing several suits.
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a fiduciary one.6 Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to
disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The
protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected
by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between
them. It even survives the death of the client.7

Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations, respondents act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in
different venues constitutes forum-shopping, as correctly found by the investigating commissioner. This highlights
his motives rather than his cause of action. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at
the complainant. In doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with
complainant and complainants companies for his own end.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.8 Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the
purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any personmost especially against a
client or former client. As we stated in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.:9
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of
honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing
his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member
of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the profession.10 (Emphasis supplied)
In sum, we find that respondent's actuations amount to a breach of his duty to uphold good faith and fairness,
sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.
Junio vs atty grupo
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion . . . It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised,
or charged for; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which
the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established . . . .
Considering the foregoing, the Investigating Commissioners recommendation to impose on respondent the penalty
of reprimand and restitution of the amount loaned by him is clearly inadequate. On the other hand, the penalty of
indefinite suspension with restitution imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is too harsh in view of respondents
apparent lack of intent to defraud complainant and of the fact that this appears to be his first administrative
transgression. It is the penalty imposed in Igual v. Javier[10] which applies to this case. In that case, this Court
ordered the respondent suspended for one month from the practice of law and directed him to pay the amount
given him by his clients within 30 days from notice for his failure to return the money in question notwithstanding
his admission that he did not use the money for the filing of the appellees brief, as agreed by them, because of an
alleged quarrel with his clients.
Anent petitioners allegation regarding the lack of hearing during the IBP investigation, suffice it to say that he
waived such right when he failed to comment on petitioners motion to submit the case for resolution on the basis
of the pleadings theretofore filed despite due notice to him, not to mention the fact that it was he who had
requested the postponement of the two hearings scheduled by the Investigating Commissioner.
Uy vs atty Gonzales
Now to the merits of the complaint against the respondent.
Practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, as well as legal
principles, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.[13] While it is true that a
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court,[14] complainant failed to prove any of the circumstances enumerated above that would warrant
the disbarment or suspension of herein respondent.
Notwithstanding respondents own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records reveals that the relationship
between complainant and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between them rather than
the practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with complainant only because he redeemed a property which
complainant had earlier purchased from his (complainants) son. It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant
P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its title and execute the Deed of Redemption. However, despite
the period given to him, complainant failed to fulfill his end of the bargain because of the alleged loss of the title

which he had admitted to respondent as having prematurely transferred to his children, thus prompting respondent
to offer his assistance so as to secure the issuance of a new title to the property, in lieu of the lost one, with
complainant assuming the expenses therefor.
As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the
consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of
obtaining professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney on
any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for, neither is it material
that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had, for as long
as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession.[15]
Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule cannot apply to the present case. Evidently, the facts
alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against
complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered
his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant.
Respondents immediate objective was to secure the title of the property that complainant had earlier bought from
his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation
and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:
Canon 21 A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
a)

When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure;

b)

When required by law;

c)

When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.

The alleged secrets of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-complaint. Whatever facts alleged by
respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity but as a
redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the
complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute
estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the
affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise
would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary
interests.
Venterez vs atty cosme
The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds aforementioned. Neither can the circumstances of this case
be considered analogous to the grounds thus explicitly enumerated. Contrary to respondents contention, his
professional relations as a lawyer with his clients are not terminated by the simple turnover of the records of the
case to his clients. Respondents defense completely crumbles in face of the fact that Salvador Ramirez is not even
a party in Civil Case No. 981 and, hence, had no authority to withdraw the records of the said case from respondent
or to terminate the latters services.
Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in withdrawing his services, he, however, cannot just do so
and leave complainants in the cold, unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for
withdrawal will be granted by the court.[24] Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains
counsel of record who is expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his clients
require.[25] He must still appear before the court to protect the interest of his clients by availing himself of the
proper remedy, for the attorney-client relations are not terminated formally until there is a withdrawal of record.
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains counsel of record for
the complainants in Civil Case No. 981; and whether he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot
immediately do so and leave his clients without representation. An attorney may only retire from the case either by

a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event, the
attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.[26] Respondent did not comply
with these obligations. Therefore, he remains the counsel of record for the complainants in Civil Case No. 981 with
the duty to protect complainants interest. Had he made the necessary inquiries as to the status of the case, he
would have known that he was still the counsel of record as no entry of appearance was ever made by another
counsel. It would have been easily discernible on his part that there was no change in his status as complainants
lawyer. As of that time, their client-lawyer relationship was still subsisting. Therefore, he would have known that
the Motion for Reconsideration was denied; and a writ of execution had been issued under the circumstances.
All told, we rule and so hold that on account of respondents failure to protect the interest of complainants,
respondent indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable. Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who
are competent intellectually, academically and morally. This Court has been exacting in its expectations for the
members of the Bar to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant lawyer involves the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.[27] In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the Court
consisted of reprimand,[28] fine of five hundred pesos with warning,[29] suspension of three months,[30] six
months[31] and even disbarment[32] in an aggravated case.
In re atty david briones
We have considered the explanation of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply with the Courts directive and we find
the same unsatisfactory. Such omission can be attributed to pure negligence on the part of Atty. Briones which we
deem inexcusable. He cannot deny that his office received a copy of the Courts resolution ordering him to submit
an appellants brief. The registry return card shows that the notice to file appellants brief was received by the
addressee on August 6, 1998. To exonerate himself from liability, Atty. Briones claims that his secretary did not
forward to him the mail matters received in his office. He, however, cannot pass the blame to his secretary as he is
personally responsible for his own communications. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to exercise due
diligence in the practice of his profession. He should not have passively waited for his secretary to inform him
about the letters and communications received in his law office, especially those coming from the courts. He
should have taken the initiative to check with her if there are important matters requiring his action or attention.
Neither is the cessation of his law practice an excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true
that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he still could not ignore the directives coming from the Court. It does
not appear from the records of G.R. No. 130965 that Atty. Briones has withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has
withdrawn his appearance in the case, the Court would still consider him as counsel for the accused-appellant and
he is expected to comply with all its orders and directives.
It should be stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.[2] A lawyers fidelity to the cause of his
client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is mandated to
exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the interest of his client. The Code of Professional
Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and he should never
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.