Law Students Help Group Philippines

LEGAL ETHICS
(CASE DIGESTS)

JAKE BRYSON DANCEL

facebook.com/jakebrysondancel
 Plus Builders vs Revilla
501 SCRA 615
Facts:
The respondent is the retainer
counsel of farmers who lost in a
litigation filed before the
Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARA
D) involving a land declared to be owned
by the petitioner. After the decision
became final, the respondent filed an
Action to Quiet Title and several other
actions with prayers for the issuance of
a TROs and writs of preliminary
injunction against the decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent
misused the court processes
Held:
Yes. It must be noted that when
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court upheld the PARAD decision, the
respondent resorted to a different forum
to pursue his clients' lost cause. In
support of the cause of their clients,
lawyers have the duty to present
every remedy or defense within the
authority of the law. This obligation,
however, must never be at the
expense of truth and justice.
x--------------------------------------x
Maligaya vs Doronilla
502 SCRA 1
Facts:
The petitioner filed this instant
case after the respondent, during a
litigation, uttered a false statement that
gave the impression to the judge that
the petitioner and the respondent came
to an agreement that if the latter will
withdraw the case against the former,
the former will also do the same. The
respondent was charged with
"misleading the court through
misrepresentation of facts". In his
answer, he pointed out that his false
statement had no effect on the
continuance of the case and therefore
caused no prejudice to the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a violation
of the code of professional
responsibility.
Held:
Yes. There is a strong public
interest involved in requiring lawyers
who, as officers of the court,
participate in the dispensation of
justice, to behave at all times in a
manner consistent with truth and
honor. By stating untruthfully in open
court that complainant had agreed to
withdraw his lawsuits, respondent
breached these peremptory tenents of
ethical conduct.
x--------------------------------------x
Sebastian vs Bajar
532 SCRA 435
Facts:
Respondent is the representation
of one Fernando Tanlioco, an
agricultural lessee, in numerous cases
involving a land owned by the
complainant's spouse and sister-in-law
(landowners). The landowners filed an
ejectment case against Tanlioco on the
basis of a conversion order of the land
use from agricultural to residential.
The RTC ruled to grant the
ejectment case subject to the payment
of disturbance compensation. The
decision was affirmed by the CA and the
SC. After the decision became final, the
respondent filed other cases arising
from the same cause of action. The
petitioner thus filed a complaint against
the respondent for misuse of rules of
procedure.
 The Court issued several
resolutions which the respondent failed
to comply with.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the respondent
misused court processes.
2. Whether or not the respondent may
be sanctioned for disobeying court
orders.
Held:
1. Yes. Canon 19 of the CPR mandates
lawyers to represent their clients
with zeal but within the bounds of the
law. It is evident from the records that
respondent filed other cases to thwart
the execution of the final judgment in
the Ejectment case.
2. Yes. Lawyers are called upon to obey
court orders and processes and
respondent's deference is underscored
by the fact that willful disregard thereof
will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to
disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact,
graver responsibility is imposed upon
a lawyer than any other to uphold the
integrity of the courts and to show
respect to their processes.
x-----------------------------------x
Aguirre vs Rana
403 SCRA 342
Facts:
Respondent was charged in a
complaint for: unauthorized practice of
law, grave misconduct, violation of law,
and grave misrepresentation.
Respondent passed the Bar exams
in 2000. On 19 May 2001, he filed a
pleading and represented himself as a
counsel for and in behalf of a vice-
mayoralty candidate, and signed the
1
said pleading as counsel. The complaint
was filed on 21 May of 2000, one day
before the scheduled mass oath-taking
for the Bar passers of 2000.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is
guilty of the violations thus charged.
Held:
The respondent is only guilty for
the "unauthorized practice of law". The
records of the case show that the other
allegations lack merit.
Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-
at-law. While it is true that the
respondent passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations and took the lawyer's
oath, it is the signing in the Roll of
Attorneys that finally makes one a
full-fledged lawyer.
The respondent was engaged in
the practice of law when he appeared in
the proceedings before the MBEC and
filed various pleadings, without license
to do so. The evidence clearly supports
the charge of unauthorized practice of
law.
x---------------------------------x
Insular Life vs NLRC
37 SCRA 244
Facts:
The 15 of the petitioners in this
case asked the Court to cite for
contempt the respondent Judge and the
counsels for the private respondents, on
the ground that the former misquoted
a Supreme Court decision (Lopez, Sr., et
al. vs Chronicle Publication Employees
Association, et al., G.R. No. L-20179-81,
28 December 1964) in his decision
subject of the instant petition, while the
latter quoted the same on
respondent's brief.
Issue:
Whether or not the misquotation
warrants an indictment for contempt
against the respondent Judge and the
counsels for the respondents
Held:
No. There was no substantial
change in the thrust of the Court's
particular ruling which they cited.
However, the Court reminded that
in citing decisions and rulings of the
Supreme Court, it is the bounden
duty of courts, judges and lawyers to
reproduce or copy he same word-for-
word and punctuation mark-for-
punctuation mark. The ever present
danger that if not faithfully and
exactly quoted, the decision and
rulings of the Court may lose their
proper and correct meaning, to the
detriment of other courts, lawyers
and the public who may thereby be
misled.
x-------------------------------------x
Re: Request of CJ Panganiban
690 SCRA 242
Facts:
In 2006, Chief Justice
Panganiban reached the compulsory
age of retirement and was credited with
more than eleven years of government
service. This was short of the 20-year
length of service requirement of RA 910,
thus making him ineligible to be entitled
to the retirement benefits with lifetime
annuity. In the meantime, RA 9946 was
enacted which reduced the service
requirement to 15 years. CJ
Panganiban thus requested instant
request to include the previously
the excluded 4-year service as Legal
Counsel of the DepEd to enable him to
meet the reduced service requirement.
Issue:
Whether or not the 4-year service
in the DepEd may be credited
Held:
Yes. The perception of
continuous and uninterrupted
exercise of one's legal profession,
despite periodic interruptions foisted
by public service is not uncommon
among legal practitioners.
Notwithstanding the absence of any
other record of CJ Panganiban's
appointment to a position or item within
the DepEd, his actual service to these
government agencies must be regarded
as no less than government service and
should be credited in his favor.
x------------------------------------x
Re: Almacen
31 SCRA 562
Held:
The lawyers duty to render
respectful subordination to the courts is
essential to the orderly administration
of justice. Hence, in the assertion of
their clients rights lawyers even those
gifted with superior intellect are
enjoined to rein up their tempers.
The counsel in any case may or
may not be an abler or more learned
lawyer that the judge, and it may tax his
patience and temper to submit rulings
which he regards as incorrect, but
discipline and self-respect are as
necessary to the orderly administration
of justice as they are to the effectiveness
of an army. The decisions of the judge
must be obeyed, because he is the
2
tribunal appointed to decide, and the
bar should at all times be the foremost
in rendering respectful submission.
A lawyer may think highly of his
intellectual endowment That is his
privilege. And he may suffer frustration
at what he feels is others' lack of it. That
is his misfortune. Some such frame of
mind, however, should not be allowed to
harden into a belief that he may attack
a court's decision in words calculated to
jettison the time honored aphorism that
courts are the temples of right.
x-------------------------------------x
Asean Pacific Planners vs City of
Urdaneta
566 SCRA 219
Facts:
Attys. Oscar C. Sahagun and
Antonio B. Escalante were counsels in
this case. It was observed by the Court
that the two used strong languages in
their pleadings before it and the Court
of Appeals. They called the Court of
Appeals a "court of technicalities" after
it dismissed the petition filed by them
due to some defects in the preparation.
They also accused the appellate court of
protecting, in their view, "an
incompetent judge".
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyers should
be sanctioned.
Held:
Yes. The Court of Appeals validly
dismissed the defectively prepared
petition. The languages used are
apparently offensive and uncalled for.
The lawyers thus violated Canon 11 of
the CPR and some of the rules
thereunder.
3
The Court reminds the lawyers
that they should observe and
maintain respect due to the Courts
and its judicial officers; abstain from
offensive language before the courts;
and not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record.
x-----------------------------------------x
Vda. de Espino vs Presquito
432 SCRA 609
Facts:
Respondent bought a parcel of
land from the deceased spouse of the
complainant and issued 8 checks in
connection therewith. The checks were
not honored and albeit several
demands, the respondent failed to exact
payment to the complainant. The former
rationalized that there was a prior
agreement between him and the
deceased spouse that the costs incurred
in the settling the right of way will be
deducted to his balance.
This matter was brought before
the IBP who recommended the
suspension of the respondent after
finding that the "respondent's lack of
fairness and candor and honesty was in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the
respondent constitute a violation of the
Rule.
Held:
Yes. The Court held that a
lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if
it pertains to his private activities, as
long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor.
 Possession of good moral
character is not only a good
condition precedent to the practice
of law but a continuing qualification
for all members of the bar.
x---------------------------------------------x
Angeles vs Gutierrez
668 SCRA 803
Facts:
The petitioner judge filed with the
Ombudsman a complaint against the
respondent prosecutor for failing to
present a material witness in a criminal
prosecution, engaging in private
practice, and falsifying a public
document. The prosecutor also filed a
criminal complaint against the
respondent judge. The Ombudsman
ruled to dismiss the complaint. Hence,
this petition alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the
Ombudsman.
Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal was
proper.
Held:
Yes. The Court found that the
dismissal of the charges was arrived at
after a rational deliberation.
Noteworthy in this case is that
the parties have resorted to the abuse
of judicial processes of the Court.
Considering that the petitioner is a
Judge and the respondent is a
prosecutor, they should have been
well-cognizant of the clogged court
dockets and should have exercised
more restraint in filing cases against
each other. Canon 12 of the CPR
enjoins a lawyer from filing multiple
actions arising from the same cause
and from misusing court processes.
4
The Court reminds all members of
the bar of their ethical and
professional duties to put an
immediate end to their
recriminations.
x------------------------------------x
Vaflor-Fabroa vs Paguinto
615 SCRA 223
Facts:
The complainant was impleaded
in an Estafa case based on a joint-
affidavit of which the respondent
prepared. The former filed a Motion to
Quash Information which the trial court
granted. The respondent also filed 6
other criminal complaints against
herein complainant only to withdraw
them later.
The complainant was also unduly
ousted from her office as Chair of
GEMASCO Board by the respondent
and his colleagues, in violation of the
Cooperative Code and the by-laws of
GEMASCO. The complainant, in the
present disbarment case alleges that
respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath
and Canons 1, 8, 10, and 19 of the CPR.
The parties were ordered to submit their
respective position papers but the
respondent, despite grant, on his
motion, of extension of time, did not file
any position paper.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the
respondent are violative of the Lawyer's
Oath and the Canons.
Held:
Yes. The Court found that the
respondent violated the provisions of
the Cooperative Code and when he filed
the baseless criminal complaints, he
violated the Lawyer's oath which
provides the obedience to the laws and
abstinence from filing groundless, false
or unlawful suits.
He also violated Canons 1, 8, 10,
and 19. In addition, the act of obtaining
Motions for Extension, which were
granted, but failing to submit the same,
is violative of Rule 12.03 of the CPR.
The respondent's cavalier attitude
in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
SC constitutes disrespect to the judicial
institution. A Court's Resolution is
"not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied
with partially, inadequately, or
selectively." Respondent's obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court's
orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant
flaw in her character"; it also
underscores her disrespect of the
Court's lawful order.
x-----------------------------------x
Bugaring vs Espan(y)ol
349 SCRA 687
Facts:
In a hearing in the sala of
respondent Judge, the petitioner's
attention was called when the Judge
noticed that the proceedings are being
caught in tape. The petitioner gave
explanations and excuses which were
not satisfactory to the court. While the
adverse counsel was making a
manifestation, petitioner started to
insisted that he be allowed to mark and
present his documentary evidence. The
Judge directed him to listen and wait for
the ruling of the Court for an orderly
proceeding. Petitioner went on with
insisting his point until the Court
declared him out of order, at which
point, petitioner lost his temper and
utter words insulting the Court. Thus,
he was declared in direct contempt.
5
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner was
cited in direct contempt properly.
Held:
Yes. The Court of Appeals found,
which the SC sustained, in a thorough
examination of the stenographic notes
that it was obvious that the petitioner
was indeed arrogant, at times
impertinent, too argumentative, to the
extent of being disrespectful, annoying
and sarcastic towards the court.
The conduct of the petitioner
during the hearing, to the extent of
interrupting the opposing counsel and
the court showed disrespect other said
counsel and the court, was defiant of
the court's system for an orderly
proceeding, and obstructed the
administration of justice.
Lawyers should be reminded
that their primary duty is to assist
the courts in the administration of
justice. Any conduct which tends to
delay, impede or obstruct
administration of justice contravenes
such lawyer's duty.
x---------------------------------------x
Manila Pest Control, Inc. vs WCC
25 SCRA 700
Facts:
The counsel for the petitioner
alleges in this petition that their right to
due process were violated for not being
able to receive a copy of a decision
wherein his client is a party. In the
course of this proceeding, a certain
Gerardo Guzman, stated in his affidavit,
the he went to the Counsel to deliver a
copy of the decision but the latter
refused to receive the said decision and
instructed Mr. Guzman instead to
deliver the said decision to one Atty.
Camacho.
Issue:
Whether or not the counsel can
validly invoke violation of the due
process clause.
Held:
No. What was done satisfied the
constitutional requirements of due
process. An effort was made to serve
petitioner with a copy of the decision;
that such effort failed was attributable
to the conduct of the counsel.
It would thus be grimly ironic if
the due process concept, in itself an
assurance and guaranty of justice and
fairness, would be the very vehicle to
visit on a hapless and impoverished
litigant injustice and unfairness.
The ancient and learned
profession of the law stresses fairness
and honor; that it must be kept in
mind by everyone who is enrolled in
its ranks and who expects to remain
a member in good standing.
x------------------------------------------x
Malonso vs Principe
447 SCRA 1
Facts:
Respondent is a member of a law
firm whose services were engaged by an
organization of landowners, through
their president, whose properties are
being expropriated. Before the favorable
decision could be rendered, the
landowners ousted the president and
installed a new one and the services of
the law firm was terminated in
connection therewith. Respondent
thereafter claimed for attorney's lien
pursuant to the contract of services
earlier entered into. The complainant
6
opposed the said lien on the grounds
that he did not authorize the
representation of the counsel. He
further filed a complaint before the IBP
against the respondent on the grounds
of misrepresentation. The IBP, on a
consensus, without official voting,
suspended the lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not the disciplinary
action is valid.
Held:
No. Before a lawyer may be
suspended from the practice of law by
the IBP, the following must be present:
1. A review of the investigator's report;
2. Formal voting; and
3. A vote of at least five (5) members
of the Board.
It is further held that, while the
practice of law is not a business
venture, a lawyer nevertheless is
entitled to be duly compensated for
professional services rendered. It is
but natural that he protects his
interest, most especially when his fee
is on a contingent basis.
x-------------------------------------------x
Sambajon vs Suing
503 SCRA 1
Facts:
The respondent was brought
before the IBP in a complaint filed by the
complainants in connection with a
Release Waiver and quitclaim. The
complainants deny having signed in the
document neither did they receive any
money in connection therewith. The
respondent claims that it was not he
who prepared the document and that he
was only present during its signing as
per instructions of his client. During a
clarificatory proceedings of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board, the
respondent attempted to coach his
client while being asked by the
Commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent
actually committed the despicable act in
violation with the Canons of CPR
Held:
Yes. The Canons violated were
Canon 17 and 18, also violated was Rule
18.03 of the CPR.
As an officer of the court, a
lawyer is called upon to assist in the
administration of justice. He is an
instrument to advance its cause. Any
act on his part that tends to obstruct,
perverts or impedes the
administration of justice constitutes
misconduct.
x-------------------------------------------x
PNB vs Uy Teng Piao
57 PHIL 337
Facts:
One of the attorneys for the
plaintiff testified in court that the
defendant renounced his right to
redeem the parcel of land that was
mortgaged in favor of the plaintiff for the
satisfaction of a judgment rendered
against the defendant, because a friend
of the defendant was interested in
buying it.
Issue:
Whether or not the bank's
attorney may testify.
7
Held:
Yes. The law does not forbid an
attorney to be a witness and at the
same time an attorney in a cause.
However, the court prefer that the
counsel should not testify as a witness
unless it is necessary, and that they
should withdraw from the active
management of the case pursuant to
Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics
which reads:
"when a lawyer is a witness for his
client, except as to merely formal
matters, such as the attestation
or custody of an instrument and
the like, he should leave the trial
of the case to other counsel.
Except when essential to the ends
of justice, a lawyer should avoid
testifying in court in behalf of his
client.
x----------------------------------------x
Nestle Phils. vs Sanchez
154 SCRA 542
Facts:
A picket was conducted by the
respondent Union in front of the gate of
the Supreme Court building,
obstructing access to and egress from
the Court's premises and offices of
justices, officials and employees
notwithstanding the fact that the
leaders of their Union had been received
by the Chairmen of the Divisions where
their cases are pending.
The attention of counsel for the
respondent Union was called in order
that the pickets might be informed that
the demonstration must cease
immediately for the same constitutes
direct contempt. The counsel thus
apologized to the Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the counsel may
be accounted for.
Held:
Yes. The Court held that the duty
and responsibility of advising the
pickets rests primarily and heavily upon
the shoulders of their counsel. The
court also reminded all members of
the legal profession that it is their
duty as officers of the court to
properly apprise their clients on
matters of decorum and proper
attitude towards courts of justice,
and to labor leaders of the
importance of continuing
educational program for their
members.
In the case at bar, the Court
accepted the apologies offered by the
respondents. Therefore, the imposition
of the sanction was not done.
x-------------------------------------------x
Re: Request of TV Coverage
360 SCRA 248
Facts:
This is a request seeking to cover
the hearing of the criminal charges
against President Estrada via live
television and live radio broadcast,
contending that in order "to assure the
public of full transparency in the
proceedings of an unprecedented case
in our history."
Issue:
Whether or not the coverage
should be allowed.
Held:
No. While the Court recognizes
the constitutional right to
information and freedom of the
8
press, when it conflicts with the
rights of the accused, the latter
should prevail. The Court continues to
rationalize that a trial of any kind or in
any court is a matter of serious
importance to all concerned and
should not be treated as a means of
entertainment. Coverage of a court
proceedings is also prejudicial to the
defendant's right to due process as well
as to the fair and orderly administration
of justice.
x-------------------------------------------x
Foodsphere vs Mauricio, Jr.
593 SCRA 367
Facts:
The complainant entered into an
agreement with the respondent, a
lawyer, wherein the latter will not
publish the incident that happened in
regards to a product of the former and
one of its consumers, and that the
former will advertise in the publishing
company of the latter. The complainant
gave a counter-offer to the respondent
which the latter found to but
unsatisfactory, and thus, he went on
publishing libelous and malicious
articles to the prejudice of the
complainant. The complainant filed the
instant complaint before the IBP.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of the
respondent are violative of the Canons
of the CPR.
Held:
Yes. The actuations of the
respondent are violative of Canons 1, 7,
8, 11 and 13.
The Court emphasized the
necessity for every lawyer to act and
comport himself in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession,
which confidence may be eroded by
the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar.
While a lawyer is entitled to
present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not
justify the use of offensive and
abusive language. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to
be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive.
x-------------------------------------------x
Magsalang vs People
190 SCRA 306
Facts:
A petition for certiorari was filed
by registered mail with the Court. For
failure to comply with the requirements
of Circular No. 1-88, the petition was
dismissed. The counsel for the therein
petitioner moved for reconsideration of
the resolution dismissing the petition,
this time the payment legal fees was
remitted. However, for failure to furnish
the Court of the assailed orders, the
motion for reconsideration was denied
with finality.
Aggrieved, the counsel filed with
the Office of the President a complaint
wherein he accused the Justices of the
Supreme Court's Second Division with
"biases and/or ignorance of the law or
knowingly rendering unjust judgments
or resolution".
The Court then required the
Counsel to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt after the
use of strong and intemperate language
in the complaint. In his Opposition, the
counsel said that he merely criticized
the acts of the Justices
9
Issue:
Whether or not the counsel should
be sanctioned.
Held:
Yes. The Court emphasized that a
"lawyer's duty is not to his client but
to the administration of justice; to
that end, his client's success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and
ethics."
The Court does not pretend to be
immune from criticisms. After all, it is
through criticism of its actions that
the Court, composed of fallible
mortals, hopes to correct whatever
mistake it may have unwittingly
committed.
x-------------------------------------------x
Francisco vs Portugal
484 SCRA 571
Facts:
Respondent is a lawyer who took
over the case of the relatives of the
complainants after the same was lost is
the Sandiganbayan. The former filed a
motion for reconsideration and pending
the resolution of the motion, he filed a
petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court. Thereafter, despite
multiple attempts of the complainants
to contact the respondent, to no avail.
They then went directly and
personally to the court to verify the
status of the petition and was shocked
to discover that the petition was already
denied in a Resolution.
In his reply, the respondent
claims that there was no formal
engagement undertaken by the parties.
He also maintains that the petition was
filed on time. He also states that he has
withdrawn as counsel to the accused as
manifested by the letter he sent to one
of them.
Issues:
1. Whether or not there was an
attorney-client relationship
2. Whether or not the withdrawal
was proper.
3. Whether or not other violations of
the CPR were committed.
Held:
1.
Yes. 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.
2.
No. The Court held that the rule
is that a client has the absolute right
to terminate the attorney-client
relation at any time with or without
cause. The right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other
than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted.
3.
Yes. In describing in his appeal
that the people he represents were
convicted for the 'salvage' of the
deceased, he violated Rule 14.01
directing 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.
x------------------------------------------x
10
People vs Estebia
27 SCRA 106
Facts:
Atty. Adriano was appointed as
counsel de officio for the appellant after
the latter was convicted of rape and was
sentenced to suffer the capital
punishment. In the notice of his
appointment, Adriano was required to
prepare and file his brief. In connection
therewith, Adriano filed a total of 5
motions for extension which were all
granted. The brief became due but the
same was never filed.
Adriano was ordered to show
cause why disciplinary action should
not be taken against him. No
explanation was afforded. The Court
resolved to impose upon him a fine of
P500 but still, the counsel paid no heed.
Finally, the Court ordered Adriano to
show cause why he should not be
suspended but again, the ignored the
resolution.
Issue:
Whether or not a disciplinary
action is proper.
Held:
Yes. An attorney's duty of prime
importance is "to observe and
maintain respect due to the courts of
justice and judicial officers". By oath
of office, the lawyer undertook to
"obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted
authorities.
This is a clear case of an attorney
whose acts exhibit willful disobedience
of lawful orders of the Court. A cause
sufficient is thus present for suspension
or disbarment.
The lawyer was suspended from
the practice of law for 6 months.
 x-------------------------------------------x
Perez vs Dela Torre
485 SCRA 547
Facts:
The respondent was charged with
misconduct and unbecoming of a lawyer
for representing conflicting interest.
Based on the records of the case, the
respondent offered his help to some
suspects in a criminal case and had
prepared extrajudicial confessions for
them. Unknown to the accused, the
heirs of their victim have retained the
services of the respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer
represented conflicting interests.
Held:
Yes. 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 the first
client he represents.
The prohibition against conflicting
interest is founded on principle of public
policy and good taste. In the course of a
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the
client's case, including the weak and
strong points of the case. The nature of
the relationship is, therefore, one of
trust and confidence of the highest
degree. It behooves lawyers not only
to keep inviolate the client's
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.
11
x----------------------------------------x
Canoy vs Ortiz
453 SCRA 410
Facts:
The services of the respondent
were engaged by the complainant Canoy
in a Labor complaint filed by the latter.
The respondent was appeared as
counsel in the proceeding. The parties
were then required by the Labor Arbiter
to submit their respective position
papers. Canoy submitted all necessary
documents and records to the
respondent for the preparation of the
position paper. Thereafter, Canoy
visited the office of the respondent
several times to get the status of the
position paper, to no avail. After two
years, the Canoy went to NLRC only to
find out that the complaint was already
dismissed for failure to submit position
paper.
Meanwhile, the respondent was
elected as a City Councilor.
Issue:
Whether or not the negligence
may be justified by the respondents
election to public office.
Held:
No. 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.
x---------------------------------------x
 Lim, Jr. vs Villarosa
490 SCRA 494
Facts:
The respondent is the family
lawyer of the complainants and the
retained counsel of the corporation they
own. There was a case wherein the
parties involved are the members of the
family he represents. He represented
both sides. Before the decision was
rendered in the case, the respondent
withdrew his services from one the
parties because of a possible conflict of
interest.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is
guilty of representing conflicting
interests.
Held:
Yes. It must be noted that the
respondent has already taken part in
the case before the withdrawal, thus, he
has obtained vital information from
both parties.
One of the tests 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, and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge
acquired in the previous
employment.
The withdrawal of the respondent
was also improper. The Court held that,
an attorney may only retire from a
case either by written consent of his
client or by permission of the court
after due notice and hearing, in
which event the lawyer should see to
12
it that the name of the new lawyer is
recorded in the case.
x------------------------------------x
Hornilla vs Salunat
405 SCRA 220
Facts:
The respondent is a member of a
law firm that was retained by the
Philippine Public School Teacher Assn
(PPSTA). A case was filed by the
complainants, who are stockholders of
the PPTSA, against the Board members
of the same. He entered his appearance
for the Board in the law suit. The
complainant in this complaint alleges
that there is a conflict of interest.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a conflict
of interest
Held:
Yes. The Court held that the
respondent is guilty of representing
conflicting interests. He being a member
of the law firm retained by the PPTSA,
the party opposed by the party he
represents.
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
lawyer's 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.
x------------------------------------x
 Gonzales vs Cabucana, Jr.
479 SCRA 320
Facts:
The complainant engaged the
services of a law firm of which the
respondent is a member in a civil case.
The former instituted another action
against the Sheriff who failed to fully
implement the writ of execution issued
in connection with the civil case. The
sheriff acquired the services of
respondent in connection with the
action filed against him. Thereafter, the
complainant filed a complaint against
the respondent, only to withdraw the
same at a later time. The respondent
claimed that there can be no conflict as
he represented the sheriff in his own
name and did not use the name of the
firm to which he belongs. The
investigating officer of the IBP
recommended only a stern warning and
reprimand.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a conflict
of interest
Held:
Yes. The Court held that the
respondent indeed violated the canon
on conflicting interest.
As the Court explained in Hilado
vs David, 84 Phil 569 (1949):
"we... cannot 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 respondent's
conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or
fraudulent, we do not believe that
upon the admitted facts it is highly
inexpedient. It had the tendency to
13
bring the profession, of which he is
a distinguished member, "into
public disrepute and suspicion and
undermine the integrity of justice."
x------------------------------------x
Rollon vs Naraval
452 SCRA 675
Facts:
The complainant went to the office
of the respondent to seek assistance in
a case filed against the former. The
respondent agreed to represent the
complainant and accepted the amount
of P8000.00 in connection with the
employment, as evidenced by a receipt.
However, there was no action performed
by the lawyer in connection with the
case until the complainant decided to
withdraw the payment she made, of
which the former refused to return
because of the reason that he has no
money.
Issue:
Whether or not the refusal to
return the payment is valid
Held:
No. The Court held that the
respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It
further said that, "Lawyers owe fidelity
to their clients. The latter's money or
other property coming into the
former's possession should be
deemed to be held in trust and should
not under any circumstance be
commingled with the lawyer's own;
much less, used by them. Failure to
observe these ethical principles
constitutes professional misconduct
and justifies the imposition of
disciplinary action."
 x-------------------------------------x
Yu vs Bondal
448 SCRA 273
Facts:
The complainant acquired the
services of the respondent in a retainer
agreement wherein they agreed for the
amount of P200,000.00 for the
acceptance fee of five cases. They also
agreed for the amount of P1500.00 for
the appearance fees. The complainant
submitted the necessary documents for
the cases and thereafter paid
P51,716.54 in the form of checks
payable to the respondent. Most of the
cases were of no success. The
complainant demanded the return of
the checks and the documents. Only
some of the documents were returned.
However, the respondent refused to
return the checks.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is
liable to return the checks.
Held:
No. The complainant even owes
more to the respondent, since it was
admitted that the latter rendered his
service in 4 out of the 5 cases. The Court
said that "an acceptance fee is not a
contingent fee, but is an absolute fee
arrangement which entitles a lawyer
to get paid for this efforts regardless
of the outcome of the litigation". The
dissatisfaction of the complainant with
the outcome of her cases does not
invalidate the retainer agreement
entered into for the respondent seemed
to have represented the cause of the
client.
x---------------------------------------x
14
Reddi vs Serbio, Jr.
577 SCRA 175
Facts:
The complainant is a foreigner
who entrusted about $3,000,000.00 to
the respondent for the purpose of
investing in the real estate industry. It
turns out however, that the latter did
not use the money for the purpose it is
intended. The complainant demanded
the return of the money but the
respondent refused. He claims, in the
complaint before the IBP, that the only
money he received is around
$500,000.00 but he also refuses to
return the same as he is claiming that it
is subject to retainer's lien. The IBP
Commissioner recommended for the
respondent's disbarment and was
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the refusal was
valid.
2. Whether or not disbarment is
proper.
Held:
1.
No. The respondent failed to
present evidence that the money was
properly accounted. Thus, the Court
adopted the resolution of the IBP Board
that the $500,000.00 be returned to the
complainant, pursuant to Canon 16.
2.
Yes. The respondent's dishonest
and deceitful conduct with respect to
the bogus transactions is sufficiently
established. The respondent's acts
manifested lack of seriousness,
notwithstanding that his license to
practice law is on the line. The Court
said:
 "When the integrity of a member
of the bar is challenged, it is not
enough that he denies the charges
against him; he must overcome the
evidence against him. He must show
proof that he still maintains that
degree of morality and integrity
which at all times is expected of
him."
The respondent miserably failed to
do so.
x-------------------------------------x
RCBI vs Florido
621 SCRA 182
Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was
filed by the members of Board Directors
of the complainant bank against the
respondent after the latter assisted in
the violent management takeover of the
bank. The respondent, in his defense,
claims that he merely acted as per his
client's orders. The IBP suspended the
respondent for 1 year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent
may be excused for his acts.
Held:
No. The Court agreed with the
statement of the IBP Commissioner:
"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
15
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.
x----------------------------------------x
Gamilla vs Marino, Jr.
399 SCRA 308
Facts:
This complaint aroused when the
respondent, acting simultaneously as
the President of a Union and as the
counsel thereof in a Labor case,
withheld part of the money that
should've gone to the members of the
union and claimed it as his professional
fees in the litigation. The complainants
allege that there is conflict of interest.
Issue:
Whether or not there is conflict of
interest.
Held:
Yes. Since the respondent will also
be benefited in the favorable outcome of
the case, he should have entrusted the
same to another lawyer to avoid
suspicion of double-dealing.
The Court held that a lawyer that
occupies fiduciary relations with
respect to property or persons is
disabled from acquiring for his own
benefit the property committed to
his custody or management. It further
stated that "Lawyers are vanguards in
the bastion of justice so they are
without doubt expected to have a
bigger dose of service-oriented
conscience and a little less of self-
interest."

x-----------------------------------x
Salomon, Jr. vs Frial
565 SCRA 10
Facts:
The complaint was instituted after
the cars of the complainant, which are
subject to attachment, were reported to
be seen being driven around. In reply,
the respondent admitted that he
authorized the use of the subject cars as
per necessity; that he has not used the
cars for his personal benefit. The
complainant prayed for disbarment of
the respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not disbarment is
proper.
Held:
No. 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.
In the case at bar, no compelling
evidence was provided tending to show
that the respondent intended to pervert
the administration of justice for some
dishonest purpose.
x-----------------------------------------x
Almendarez, Jr. vs Langit
496 SCRA 402
Facts:
The respondent is the counsel of
the mother of the complainant in an
ejectment case, the latter being the
plaintiff. The defendant in the said case
deposited payment for rent in the trial
court. The trial court rendered a
16
judgment based on a compromise
agreement between the parties.
The respondent, thereafter,
withdraw what was deposited in the
court, after the latter granted his motion
to withdraw the deposited rentals.
However, the complainant was never
informed of this, and despite demands
from the respondent, the same did not
heed. This prompted the complainant to
file a complaint for disbarment for
violations of the Canons.
Issue:
Whether or not disbarment is
proper.
Held:
No. When a lesser penalty may
be imposed, then it shall be imposed
accordingly.
The Court reminded the nature of
the relations between an attorney and a
client which the respondent failed to
observe. Instead, he demonstrated lack
of integrity, care, and devotion required
by the legal profession from its
members. The Court also reminded its
right and duty to withdraw the privilege
as officer of the Court and a member of
the Bar.
x---------------------------------x
CHUA and HSIA vs Mesina, Jr.
436 SCRA 149
Facts:
The complainants (C) are business
partners who agreed to settle the bank
obligations of the mother of the
respondent(R), on a condition that the
latter would execute a deed of sale of the
mortgaged land, which the Chuas are
leasing, in their favor. The complainants
consulted the respondent regarding the
Capital Gains Tax. The latter
recommended that they simulate an
antedated Deed of Sale for them to not
to pay the said tax. The complainants
agreed. The respondent also borrowed
the owner's copy of the title from C for
some of his undertaking. The latter
agreed after R made an affidavit to that
effect. The title was again transferred to
the name of R's mother with a promise
that it will be reconveyed to C. R, albeit
the demands of C, failed to do so, until
R's mother passed away. C also learned
that the land in question is already
being sold at a public auction. Hence, C
filed a complaint against R for gross
misconduct. IBP recommended 1-year
suspension from the practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not R is guilty of the
offense thus charged.
Held:
Yes. Based on the facts given,
there is indeed gross misconduct
committed by R, for violating several
Canons of the CPR.
The Court held that as a rule, a
lawyer is not barred from dealing
with his client but the business
transaction must be characterized
with utmost honest 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
17
ignorance of his client. Thus, no
presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing is
considered in an attorney's favor.
x---------------------------------------x
Cerdan vs Gomez
668 SCRA 394
Facts:
After the death of the common-law
husband of the petitioner (P), she
sought the legal services of the
respondent (R) for the management of
the bank accounts, maintained during
the cohabitation of P and her deceased
husband, left by the deceased. To this
effect, P authorized R, thru a special
power of attorney (SPA), to settle the
account in a specific branch of the
bank; that they agreed to a 50-50
sharing between C and the children of
the deceased. It was replaced, however,
in a Compromise Agreement (CA) with
at 60-40 sharing in favor of the children.
Furthermore, the CA included another
bank account in another branch of the
bank. After acquiring C's share of more
than P400,000.00, R gave C
P290,000.00 as a result of the CA,
uttering the words that it is the all of the
money C is left and that he already
deducted his fees.
C also claims that she paid R the
amount of P152,000.00 but only
P100,000.00 was reflected on the
receipt. C filed a complaint before the
IBP, in which the proceedings ensued.
IBP found R guilty and thus
recommended suspension from the
practice of law for 6 months.
Issue:
Whether or not the findings were
correct.
Held:
Yes. The fiduciary nature of the
relationship between counsel and client
imposes on a lawyer the duty to account
for the money or property collected or
received for or from the client. He is
obliged to render a prompt accounting
of all the property and money he has
collected for his client.
Lawyers should always live up to
the ethical standards of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Public
confidence in law and in lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the
bar. Thus, every lawyer should act
and comport himself in a manner
that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession.
x---------------------------------------x
Hernandez vs Go
450 SCRA 1
Facts:
Complainant (C) was left with
obligations by her husband. For fear of
having their properties foreclosed, C
went to the respondent (R) for advice.
Instead, R advised C to sell the
properties for her to be able to pay C's
creditors and persuaded her execute
deeds of sale for the properties in his
favor for him to be able to sell them.
Later, C found out that R did not pay
the creditors out of the proceeds of the
sale but rather, from his own money. He
transferred the titles of the properties in
his own name.
C filed a complaint before the IBP
against R. After deliberation, the IBP
recommended 6 months of suspension.
18
Issue:
Whether or not R should be suspended
from the practice of law.
Held:
No. The ultimate penalty of
disbarment should be imposed.
The court held that R's conduct
has made him unfit to remain in the
legal profession. He has definitely fallen
below the moral bar when he engaged in
deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and
grossly immoral acts. Membership in
the legal profession is a privilege.
And whenever it is made to appear
that an attorney is no longer worthy
of the trust and confidence of his
clients and the public, it becomes not
only the right but also the duty of
this Court, which made him one of its
officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to
withdraw the privilege.
x------------------------------------------x
Tarog vs Ricafort
645 SCRA 320
Facts:
The Tarogs engaged the services of
Atty. Ricafort after their properties were
foreclosed by a bank. The latter advised
them to deposit an amount greater that
what their adversary has deposited for
them to have a better chance. The
Tarogs gave the money and a check to
Ricafort for that matter.
However, Ricafort did not use the
money as appropriated and deposited it
instead in his bank account. He assured
the Tarogs that the money is in good
hands and even promised that it will
earn interest. When it became apparent
that the money will not be deposited in
the court, the Tarogs sent several
demand letters to Ricafort, to no avail.
Hence, the former filed a
complaint and the IBP recommended
disbarment. The penalty was reduced to
indefinite suspension after Ricafort filed
a Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not suspension is
proper in lieu of the disbarment.
Held:
No. Ricafort had done grave and
gross misconduct in blatant violation of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR. He
gravely abused the confidence reposed
in him and committed dishonesty. He
also acted in bad faith in several
instances as was stated in the facts of
his case.
By violating Rule 1.01 of Canon
1 of the CPR, respondent diminished
public confidence in the law and the
lawyers. Instead of promoting such
confidence and respect, he miserably
failed to live up to the standards of
the legal profession.
x-------------------------------------x
Businos vs Ricafort
283 SCRA 407
Facts:
Complainant (C) entrusted upon
Respondent (R), being their counsel in a
case, the withdrawal of money
deposited in the Clerk of Court and the
collection of rent from a school for him
to deposit the same to the bank account
of C's husband. R failed to do so and
told C that he has spent it for his
personal use but promise to pay the
same. Albeit several demands, R failed
to deposit the money in the account of
C's husband. For that reason, C filed an
19
administrative case against R. The IBP
ordered R to comment on the same but
the latter did not do so. Another order
was given with fine. R paid the fine but,
after obtaining extension of time, he
failed to submit any comment. The IBP
recommended suspension for the erring
lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not the punishment is
commensurate to the acts committed by
the R
Held:
No. R, by converting the money of
his clients to his own personal use
without their consent, and by deceiving
the complainant into giving him an
amount purportedly to be used as a
bond which was not required is,
undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct. By
so doing, he betrays the confidence
reposed in him by his clients. Not only
has he degraded himself but as an
unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched
the fair name of an honorable
profession. His blatant disregard of the
Court orders aggravated his violation.
A lawyer shall at all times upho
ld the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The trust and
confidence necessarily reposed by
clients required in the attorney a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to
his client, 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.
x------------------------------------x
Quilban vs Robinol
171 SCRA 768
Facts:
Atty. Robinol is the counsel of an
organization of squatters involving a
case for the annulment of a sale of the
land they occupy that was supposed to
be sold to them. A judgment for the
reconveyance of the land in favor of the
squatters was rendered by the Court of
Appeals. The squatters accumulated
the money and entrusted the same to
Atty. Robinol for the latter to reimburse
it to the defendant, but he did not apply
the same to its purpose. The latter
withheld the money claiming that it is
for his lien.
After several unsuccessful
demands, the organization decided to
terminate his services, wrote him a
letter in this regard, and installed Atty.
Montemayor as their new counsel. Atty.
Robinol made no objection when the
latter entered his appearance in court.
However, the latter claims that the
former encroached upon his
professional employment.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Atty. Robinol has
the right to withhold the money
2. Whether or not Atty. Montemayor
has committed a violation.
Held:
1.
No, the respondent has no right to
withhold the funds. The principle of
quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is
employed without a price agreed
20
upon for his services in which case he
would be entitled to receive what he
merits for his services, as much as he
has earned. In this case, however, there
was an express contract and a
stipulated mode of compensation. The
implied assumpsit on quantum meruit
is therefore, inapplicable.
2.
No. There was a valid consensus
when the organization decided to
terminate the services of Atty. Robinol.
He is also estopped from questioning
the appearance of Atty. Montemayor.
The clients are free to change their
counsel at any time and employ
another. It is their prerogative.
x--------------------------------------x
Barnachea vs Quiocho
399 SCRA 1
Facts:
The services of the respondent (R)
was engaged by the complainant (C) for
the transfer under her name of the title
of a property previously owned by the
latter's sister. In connection with the
said employment, C issued checks
payable to R for the expenses of the said
transfer and his legal services. R
encashed the checks. However, the
money did not serve its purpose. When
C demanded for its return, R failed to do
so and sent a letter instead and a post-
dated check. When the said check was
due, the funds were not available.
C went to the IBP to file a
complaint against R. The IBP ordered R
to repay his client for the principal
amount and gave a reprimand.
Issue:
Whether or not the order was
commensurate to the acts of R

Held:
No. A lawyer is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
all his dealings and transactions with
his client. The profession, therefore,
demands of an attorney an absolute
abdication of every personal
advantage conflicting in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the
interest of his client. In this case,
respondent miserably failed to measure
up to the exacting standard expected of
him.
x---------------------------------------------x
Rubias vs Batiller
51 SCRA 120
Facts:
Atty Rubias is the counsel of the
record of one Militante in a case
involving land dispute. The latter,
during the pendency of the case,
executed a Deed of Sale in favor of the
former. A judgment was rendered in
favor of the adversary of Militante.
Rubias, now, is claiming that he
has the better right on the land in
question by virtue of the Deed of Sale.
Issue:
Whether or not the lawyer has the
better right.
Held:
No. Under the Civil Code, lawyers
cannot purchase a property and
rights in litigation and handled be
them. The nullity of such prohibited
contracts is definite and permanent
and cannot be cured by ratification.
The public interest and public policy
remain paramount and do not permit
compromise or ratification.
21
x---------------------------------------------x
Cantiller vs Potenciano
180 SCRA 246
Facts:
A judgment for the ejectment of
the complainant was rendered. In this
regard, the complainant was introduced
to the respondent, who prepared a
petition for the purpose of delaying the
execution of the judgment. He even
assured the success of the petition as
the Judge is his friend. During the
hearing, the Judge asked the
respondent to withdraw as counsel in
the case of the ground of their
friendship.
Thereafter, R went to the house of
C and asked her to be ready with P2,000
to be given to another Judge who will
issue a restraining order. On several
other occasions, the respondent also
demanded money from C for the filing of
petitions. At the hearing of one of the
petitions filed by the respondent, the
latter withdrew as counsel of the record.
Issue:
Whether or not the withdrawal
was proper.
Held:
No. When a lawyer takes a
client's cause, he thereby covenants
that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion.
The failure to exercise due diligence or
the abandonment of a client's cause
makes such lawyer unworthy of the
trust which the client had reposed on
him. The acts of the respondent in this
case violate the most elementary
principles of professional ethics.
Lawyers should be fair, honest,
respectable, above suspicion and
beyond reproach in dealing with their
clients. The profession is not
synonymous with an ordinary
business proposition. It is a matter of
public interest.
x---------------------------------------------x
Edquibal vs Ferrer, Jr.
450 SCRA 406
Facts:
Out of 5 cases filed by C, one was
unsuccessful. For that reason, C
expressed his intention to file appeal to
R. The appeal was prepared by R,
however, he did not file the same until
C gave him the money for the docket
fees. R told them to just wait for the
result. C learned that the appeal was
dismissed for failure to file appellant's
brief.
C thus instituted a complaint where R
denied having filed an appeal because
he was given the impression that
another lawyer is going to handle the
same.
Issue:
Whether or not the excuse is
acceptable.
Held:
No. A lawyer serves his client
with diligence by adopting that norm
of practice expected of men of good
intentions. He thus owes entire
devotion to the interest of his client,
warm zeal in the defense and
maintenance of his rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learning, skill,
and ability to ensure that nothing
shall be taken or withheld from him,
save by the rules of law legally
applied. It is axiomatic in the practice
of law that the price of success is eternal
diligence to the cause of the client.
22
R could have manifested that he is
not handling the appeal. Further, he
should have kept abreast client of the
developments of the appeal.
x----------------------------------------x
De Juan vs Baria III
429 SCRA 187
Facts:
R was designated to handle a
labor case for C, for the complaint of
illegal dismissal. In the said case, the
Labor arbiter rendered a decision in
favor of the complainant. The employer
appealed to NLRC who reversed the
decision of the LA and declared that
there was no illegal dismissal. C blamed
R for the reversal. She wanted to appeal
but R said that he doesn't know how to
create a Motion for Reconsideration.
C filed a case against R and the
same was referred to the IBP. In his
reply, he stated that he is only passed
the bar couple of years back. And that
he had told C of his inexperience.
Meanwhile, the NLRC decision
became final and executory without any
MR filed.
Issue:
Whether or not R committed culpable
negligence.
Held:
Yes. It is incumbent upon a
counsel to diligently return to his
books and re-familiarize himself with
the procedural rules for a motion for
reconsideration.
Among the fundamental rules of
ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes an action
impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case
becomes final and executory. Any
dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects
the client. This means that his client is Barbuco vs Beltran
entitled to the benefit of any and every 436 SCRA 57
remedy and defense that is authorized
by the law and he may expect his lawyer Facts:
to assert every such remedy or defense. The center of this case is when R
belatedly filed an appeal brief which led
x----------------------------------------x to the dismissal of C's case.
R is a member of a law firm. In his
Fernandez vs Novero, Jr. comment on the complaint against him,
393 SCRA 57 he contends that he met an accident
which rendered him incapable of filing
Facts: the brief on time.
C engaged the services of R after
the former's counsel withdrew from the Issue:
case. When a judgment not favorable to Whether or not R is guilty of
C was rendered, the latter filed a negligence.
complaint blaming the respondent for
negligently handling the case. Held:
Yes. His excuse that he met an
Issue: accident is untenable for he is a
Whether or not the dismissal may member of a law firm and he could have
be attributed to the negligence of the asked his partners to prepare and file
counsel. the brief for him.
A lawyer is bound to protect his
Held: client's interest to the best of his ability
Yes. A counsel must constantly and with utmost diligence. Failure to
keep in mind that his actions or file brief within the reglementary
omissions, even malfeasance or period certainly constitutes
nonfeasance, would be binding on his inexcusable negligence.
client. Verily, a lawyer owes to the Every member of the Bar should
client the exercise of utmost prudence always bear in mind that every case that
and capability in that representation. a lawyer accepts deserves his full
Lawyers are expected to be attention, diligence, skill and
acquainted with the rudiments of law competence, regardless of its
and legal procedure, and anyone who importance and whether he accepts it
deals with them has the right to expect for a fee or for free. A lawyer's fidelity
not just a good amount of professional to the cause of his client requires him
learning and competence but also a to be ever mindful of the
whole-hearted fealty to the clients responsibilities that should be
cause. expected of him. He is mandated to
exert his best efforts to protect the
x----------------------------------------x interest of his client within the bounds
of the law.

x----------------------------------------x

23
 Endaya vs Oca
410 SCRA 244
Facts:
C filed in a Civil Case a
memorandum and after which, the
same engaged the services of R. During
the initial stages of the proceedings, R
appears as counsel for C and his
spouse. He moved for the amendment of
the answer previously filed by C but the
motion was denied. Thereafter, the
Judge ordered the parties to submit
their affidavits and position papers,
which R failed to do. Luckily, the
decision was rendered in favor of C.
The losing party appealed the
decision to a superior court. Again, R
did not file any memorandum. The
appellate court submitted the case for
decision, notwithstanding the absence
of the memorandum. Later, the court
reversed the judgment of the inferior
court.
Hence, a complaint was instituted
before the IBP. R, in his reply, claimed
that it was prudent for him not to file
position paper because it would be a
repetition of the memorandum of the
complainants.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent
may be faulted
Held:
Yes. R should have known that a
Motion for Leave of Court to amend
answer is not allowed in summary
proceedings. Found in the lawyers oath
is the duty of a lawyers to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client.
Specifically, to serve his clients with the
best of his knowledge and discretion.
It bears stressing that much is
demanded from those who engage in the
practice of law because they have a duty
24
not only to their clients, but also to the
court, to the bar, and to the public. The
lawyers diligence and dedication to
his work and profession not only
promote the interest of his client, it
likewise helps attain the ends of
justice by contributing to the proper
and speedy administration of cases,
bring prestige to the bar and
maintain respect to the legal
profession.
x----------------------------------------x
Dalisay vs Mauricio, Jr.
456 SCRA 508
Facts:
C was referred to R by another
lawyer. R accepted the employment and
received money (P56,000.00) in that
regard. However, R never rendered any
legal service in connection with the case
referred to him by C.
In the complaint before the IBP, R
claimed that the fees collected was
intended for another case he would file
for the complainant. He also alleged
that some of the money was for the legal
advice that was given to C.
Issue:
Whether or not R has justified the
fees collected.
Held:
No. Since R did not take any step
to assist complainant in her case,
charging P56,000.00 is improper. While
giving legal advice and opinion on
complainant's problems and those of
her family constitutes legal service,
however, the attorney's fees must be
reasonable. P56,000 is exorbitant.
The Lawyer's Oath declares that R
shall impose upon himself the sacred
duty, among other, that he will not
delay any man for money or malice.
Further, Canon 20 of the CPR mandates
that "A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
x----------------------------------------x
Ruiz vs Delos Santos
577 SCRA 29
Facts:
This involves an appeal that was
not perfected due to the personal
admission of negligence of the counsel
of the petitioner to pay the appropriate
docket fees. The petitioners filed a
petition for relief in the dismissal of the
appeal on the ground that it was their
counsel's excusable negligence that
caused the non-perfection of the appeal.
The latter relied on the statement
of the Clerk of Court about the
relaxation on the technical aspect of the
appeal.
Cayetano vs Monsod
201 SCRA 210
Practice of Law, defined.
Practice of law means any activity,
in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service,
which device or service requires the use
in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
x----------------E-N-D------------------x

Issue:
Whether or not the counsel's
negligence is to be excused

Held:
No. The effects of the negligence of
a counsel binds his clients. Indeed, the
Court had relaxed in the technical
aspects in previous cases. However,
such is not applicable to the present
case, as the same is not one that
deserves the relaxation.
It is the duty of the client to be
in touch with his counsel so as to be
constantly posted about the case.
Since there was a participation of
negligence on the part of petitioner, it
would not relieve them of the
consequence of the negligence of their
counsel.

x------------------------------------------x

25