CANON 17
Respondent is then suspended for 2 years for violating Rules
Case: ROBERTO P. NONATO vs. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M.
FUDOLIN, JR.
(A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015)
FACTS:
The father of the complainant, the late Restituto Nonato,
was the owner of real property at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental.
The property became a subject of ejectment proceedings before
the MTC of Hinigaran. Restituto was represented by Atty.
Garcia but was replaced by Atty. Fudolin during the pre-trial
stage. The complainant alleged that Restituto paid the
respondent his acceptance fees but no formal retainer
agreement was executed and did not issue any receipts for the
acceptance fees paid. The respondent alleged that he received
the minimal acceptance fee of P20,000 and appearance fee of
P1,000, and that he engaged his services to Restituto because
they were relatives. During the pendency of the case he failed to
inform Restituto of the status and developments in the case,
Restituto could not contact him, and he failed to furnish
Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and other documents
filed with the court. MTC dismissed Restituto’s complaint.
Respondent filed 2 Motions for Reconsideration, both of which
denied. He also averred that he was suffering from
"Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation,
Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II" and had an
undetected stroke and arterial obstruction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent could be held liable for
negligence in the performance of duty.
HELD:
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of IBP except
for the recommended penalty. The respondent has been remiss
in the performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel and his
alibis were unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought.
18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Canon 17 of the Code. He
is also warned that the commission of similar acts will be dealt
more severely and is directed to formally Manifest to the Court
the date of receipt which shall be the starting point of his
suspension.
Case: ANGELITO RAMISCAL vs. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO
(A.C. No. 10945, February 23, 2016)
FACTS:
Complainants engaged in the legal services of respondent
to handle a case in which they were defendants seeking the
declaration of nullity of title to a parcel of land in Isabela.
Respondent received P10,000 acceptance fee from them and
handled the trial of their case until RTC decided in their favor.
Plaintiffs appeals to the CA to which the respondent requested
from the complainants an additional P30,000 for the
preparation and submission of their appellee’s brief in the CA.
The CA reversed the decision of the RTC but the respondent did
not inform the complainants. They had trouble communicating
with respondent. When they finally reached him, he requested
for an additional P7,000 as fee for filing a motion for
reconsideration which he did not file. Complainants lost their
property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of
P3,391,600.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent may be suspended from
the practice of law due to his gross misconduct.
HELD:
While complainants and respondent did not appear
during the mandatory conferences set by IBP, the IBP found
that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rules 18.03 of the
Code. The Court agreed with the IBP’s findings that respondent
did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the
lawyer of Ramiscals. The Court believes that the respondent
violated the Lawyer’s Oath which contravenes the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 17 and Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18. He failed to discharge his
burdens to the best of his knowledge and discretion and with all
good fidelity to his clients and his unexplained disregard of the
orders issued to him by the IBP to comment and to appear in
the administrative investigation of his conduct revealed his
irresponsibility and disrespect for the IBP.
Case: FELIX E. EDQUIBAL vs. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER,
JR.
(A.C. No. 5687. February 03, 2005)
FACTS:
Edquibal charged Atty. Ferrer with professional misconduct
and neglect of duty.
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of
respondent to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed
against his sister Delia involving a certain property. His mother
obtained favorable judgments in four cases handled by
respondent. However, in the civil case, the trial judge rendered
a decision adverse to his mother. Respondent then advised
complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that the cost
involved is P4,000.00. When complainant informed respondent
that he does not have enough money, the latter said P2,000.00
would be sufficient for the moment.
When complainant failed to hear from respondent, he went
to the Court of Appeals to follow-up the appealed case. He then
learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure to file the
required appellants brief.
In his comment, respondent denied that he filed an
appeal or received P2,000.00.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ferrer is guilty of professional
misconduct and neglect of duty.
HELD:
Yes. Records show that respondent was the counsel for
the appellants. There is a need for the client to be adequately
and fully informed about the developments in his case.
Respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.
Atty. Ferrer is found guilty of professional misconduct
and neglect of duty and is suspended from the practice of law
for three months.
Case: MARY ANN T. MATTUS vs. ATTY. ALBERT T.
VILLASECA
(A.C. No. 7922. October 01, 2013.)
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Mary Ann T.
Mattus against Atty. Albert T. Villaseca for gross and
inexcusable negligence.
The complainant and her husband, German, were among
the accused in a case for estafa thru falsification of public
document. The spouses engaged the services of Villaseca to
represent them.
 The complainant maintained that she and German were
convicted due to Villaseca’s gross and inexcusable negligence in
performing his duties as their counsel. The complainant
alleged, among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often absent
during court hearings but still collected appearance fees; (2)
frequently sought the postponement of trial; (3) failed to file a
demurrer to evidence; (4) failed to present evidence on behalf of
the defense; (5) did not inform her and German of the dates of
the presentation of defense evidence and the promulgation of
judgment; and (6) erroneously indicated the wrong case number
in the notice of appeal.
Villaseca refuted the allegations against him.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that
Villaseca be suspended for six months from the practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Villaseca is guilty of negligence.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
The Court stressed that the moment Villaseca agreed to
handle the complainant’s case, he became duty-bound to serve
his clients with competence and diligence. The Court stated
that Villaseca fell short of what is expected of him as an officer
of the Court and showed a wanton and utter disregard to his
clients’ cause. The Court found him guilty of negligence, in
violation, among others, of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for
five years.
Case: WILLIAM ONG - GENATO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ESSEX
L. SILAPAN, respondent.
(A.C. No. 4078, Jul 14, 2003)
FACTS:
The lawyer was given a small space within the
complainant’s building so he can use it for office space.
Eventually, the complainant entrusted several legal matters to
the lawyer. Later, the lawyer borrowed some money from the
complainant so he can buy a new car, to which the complainant
acceded by lending him P200,000.00. The lawyer issued a
check in favor of complainant to cover the first six months
interest of the loan. He also executed a real estate mortgage in
favor of the complainant, but did not surrender the title to the
complainant.
Later, the lawyer failed to pay the amortization on his
car, the financing company sent demand letters to the
complainant, hence the complainant encashed the checks
issued by the lawyer for payment, but it was dishonored for
reason that the account closed.
In his answer to the civil action, the lawyer alleged,
quoting the decision:
“12. That on January 29, 1993, before paying for
the next installment on his car on January 30,
1993, defendant Essex L. Silapan asked the
complainant to execute a Deed of Sale transferring
ownership of the car to him but the latter said that
he will only do so after the termination of his
criminal case at Branch 138 of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Metro Manila, x x x where he
(complainant) wanted Essex L. Silapan, his former
counsel in that case, to offer bribe money to the
members of the review committee of the Department
of Justice where a petition for review of the
 resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor was
pending at the time, x x x or, in the event that the
said petition for review is denied, he wanted Essex
L. Silapan to offer bribe money to the prosecutor
assigned at the above-mentioned Court, and even to
the presiding Judge, for his eventual acquittal,
which defendant Essex L. Silapan all refused to do
not only because such acts are immoral and illegal,
but also because the complainant confided to him
that he was really involved in the commission of the
crime that was charged of in the above-mentioned
case. (emphasis supplied)”
Complainant felt aggrieved on the allegations made by the
lawyer in his answer, alleging that it is irrelevant to the civil
action and violated lawyer-client confidentiality, thus he filed a
disbarment case against the lawyer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyer be made liable for violating the
lawyer-client relationship if he alleges or imputes illegal activity
on the part of his client.
HELD:
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.
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.
Be that as it may, respondent’s explanation that it was
necessary for him to make the disclosures in his pleadings fails
to satisfy us. The disclosures were not indispensable to protect
his rights as they were not pertinent to the foreclosure case. It
was improper for the respondent to use it against the
complainant in the foreclosure case as it was not the subject
matter of litigation therein and respondent’s professional
competence and legal advice were not being attacked in said
case. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings
with his clients, with integrity in a manner that is beyond
reproach. His relationship with his clients should be
characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.
The lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for
six months.
Case: LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO FLORES
(A.C. No. 4219, Dec 8, 2003)
FACTS:
Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992, complainant Schulz engaged in
the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a
complaint against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for
the latter’s failure to deliver the jeep which he sold to Schulz.
Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in
acting upon his case resulted in his being a defendant rather
than a complainant. He also charged the respondent for
collecting excessive and unreasonable fees. In support of his
charges against the respondent, he pointed out that he was a
Municipal Judge of Negros Oriental who was dismissed from
service after the Marcos Regime.
Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and
application of PD No. 1508 which mandates that all disputes
between and among residents of the same city or municipality
should be brought first under the system of barangay
conciliation before recourse to the court can be allowed.
Because of respondent’s transgressions, his client was haled to
court as part-defendant. Respondent also refused to return
petitioner’s money in spite of his meager service.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyer is in violation of Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court ruled that that the respondent violated Canon
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:
CANON 17. – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY
TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
The Court has time and again emphatically stated that
the trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires
in the lawyer a high standard and an appreciation of his duty to
his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every case
an attorney accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill
and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. To be sure, any member of the
legal fraternity worth his title cannot afford to practice the
profession in a lackadaisical manner.
Case: FERDINAND A. SAMSON vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA
(A.C. No. 6664, Jul 16, 2013)
FACTS:
The case is a disbarment complaint by complainant
Ferdinand A. Samson charging respondent Atty. Edgardo O.
Era with violation of his trust and confidence of a client by
representing the interest of Emilia C. Sison, his present client,
in a manner that blatantly conflicted his interest.
Respondent was the representative of complainant and
his relatives in the criminal prosecution of Sison and her group,
officers of the ICS Exports, Inc., a pyramiding scam.
Respondent contended that the attorney-client relationship
between him and Samson and his group had terminated upon
the compromise settlement between them and Sison and the
ICS Corporation, and that his counseling of the latter was an
appointment de officio by Branch 102 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City only for purposes of her arraignment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held respondent guilty. The
termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with
that of the former client as the client’s confidence once given
should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the
professional employment. A lawyer should not do anything that
will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which
the lawyer previously represented the client, nor should he
disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the
previous relation. This violates Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which expressly declares that: “A
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
Case: JOSEFINA CARANZA DE SALDIVAR vs. ATTY. RAMON
SG CABANES, JR.
(A.C. No. 7749, Jul 8, 2013)
FACTS:
The case is an administrative complaint by complainant
Josefina Caranza vda. De Saldivar against respondent Atty.
Ramos SG Cabanes, Jr. for gross negligence in violation of
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, among
others.
Respondent was complainant’s representative in an
unlawful detainer case wherein due to the latter’s failure to
attend a preliminary conference, said case resulted in
immediate submission for decision and the eventual loss of the
complainant’s cause to which respondent never remedied.
Furthermore, respondent failed to timely turn-over to
complainant the papers and documents after losing said case,
barred off her remedies resulting her loss.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held respondent guilty of Canon 17
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others, which
holds that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Respondent failed to justify his absence during the
scheduled preliminary conference hearing; he could have
exercised ordinary diligence by inquiring whether said tentative
hearing would push through. Moreover, the fact that
respondent had an important commitment during that day
hardly exculpates him from his omission since the prudent
course of action would have been for him to send a substitute
counsel to appear on his behalf. Equally compelling is the fact
that respondent purposely failed to assail the heirs’ appeal
before the CA.
Case: MARILEN G. SOLIMAN vs. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-
AMBOY
(A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015)
FACTS:
Soliman engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in
connection with a partition case which was no longer instituted
but instead Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the
titles to the said property from the co-owners to the individual
owners. Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the
issuance of the titles to the property because of the failure of
the other co-owners to submit certain documents. Later, the
respondent told Soliman that someone from the Register of
Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a fee
of P50,000.00. Soliman deposited the same to Atty. Amboy’s
bank account. Afterwards, Atty. Amboy informed Soliman that
the certificates of title to the property were then only awaiting
the signature of the authorized officer. However, Atty. Amboy
failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and
her co-owners to the subject property. Atty. Amboy’s secretary
informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for
an additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said
certificates of title. Soliman then refused to further pay and
then asked the updates on the release of the said title but
respondent did not answer. Thereafter, Soliman and Atty.
Amboy’s secretary went to the office of a certain Atty.
Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila. Soliman inquired to Atty.
Marasigan if he received the P50,000.00 as payment for the
release of the said titles but the latter denied having received
any amount to facilitate the release of the titles and claimed
that the reason why the same could not be processed was that
Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents. Upon demand to
release the documents and the money given, respondent
refused.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly
states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him (Canon 17). Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as
payment for her professional services, failed to submit material
documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of
title to the individual owners of the property. It was her
negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the
certificates of title. The respondent was found GUILTY of
violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years ORDERED to return the entire amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal
interest.
Case: ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO
(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)
FACTS:
Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American
Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors
in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and
repair of motor vehicles in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991,
they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M.
Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator of
their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the
United States of America (USA). Sometime in 1993, complainant
began to suspect that respondent and his wife were having an
illicit affair. When confronted, his wife initially denied any
amorous involvement with respondent but eventually broke
down and confessed to their love affair that began in 1993.
Respondent likewise admitted the relationship. Subsequently,
at a meeting initiated by respondent and another meeting was
held, in the presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo,
respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit
attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective
spouses' forgiveness. Complainant instituted the present suit
for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging respondent of gross
immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer, respondent
admitted the material allegations of the complaint but
interposed the defense of pardon.
ISSUE:
Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the
Affidavit is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the present
disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct
HELD:
NO. Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's
wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his
utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his
profession. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence
reposed on him by complainant which in itself is prohibited
under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena
amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct
warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct, among others.
Respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO was found
GUILTY of Gross Immorality and was SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
CANON 18
Case: TRINIDAD H. CAMARA vs. ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY
REYES
(A.C. No. 6121, July 31, 2009)
FACTS:
Complainant engaged in the services of respondent to
handle her case. Respondent received P50,000 as partial
acceptance fee evidenced by a receipt placed on his calling card
but no steps were taken to protect the complainant’s interest.
Complainant asked the return of the amount given to
respondent for repairing her house. Respondent promised to
take charge of the repairs but he failed to fulfill his promise.
ISSUES:
Whether or not disbarment or suspension proceeding
shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of resolution
between complainant and respondent.
Whether or not the complainant violated Canon 18, Rule
18.03 of the Code.
HELD:
Respondent prayed that the case be closed because the
matter has been resolved. However, IBP and the Court stated
that as general rule, disbarment proceeding shall not be
interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges
or failure of the complainant to prosecute unless the Court
motu proprio determines that there is no compelling reason to
continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings
against the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for
legal services in handling complainant's case and subsequently
failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18,
Rule 18.03 which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence. Accordingly, respondent is
suspended from practice of law for 6 months.
Case: MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL vs. ATTY. RONALDO E.
RENTA
(A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014)
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of Renta Pe &
Associates Law Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition
for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green"
before the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent, the managing
partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract of Legal
Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000
for the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition
was filed. Complainant then filed against respondent due to the
latter's failure to file the petition for recognition and return the
amount of P160,000 despite demand. Respondent explained
that it was supposedly Anneth Tan to file the petition but lost it
without informing him of such fact and assured that he will
return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's
Affidavit of Desistance which averred that respondent cried for
forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant
confirmed that respondent had already refunded the amount he
paid.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his
breached duty to serve complainant with diligence and
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.
HELD:
On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that
execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant
proceedings against respondent in view of the public service
character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment
proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is
not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his
conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as
a member of the Bar. It was held that the respondent violated
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and reprimanded with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with
more severely.
Case: REX POLINAR DAGOHOY vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN
JUAN
(A.C. No. 7944. June 03, 2013.)
FACTS:
Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross
negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's
appeal filed before the Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy,
his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy,
was charged with and convicted of theft. According to the
complainant, the CA dismissed the appeal for San Juan’s
failure to file the appellant’s brief. He further alleged that San
Juan did not file a motion for reconsideration against the CA’s
order of dismissal. The complainant also alleged that Atty. San
Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of
Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for
its dismissal.
In his comment, Atty. San Juan denied the charge. He
imputed fault on Tomas for failing to furnish him a copy of the
case records to enable him to prepare and file the appellant’s
brief.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. San Juan is guilty of gross
negligence.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court stated that securing a copy of
the case records was within Atty. San Juan’s task as the
lawyer. Second, Atty. San Juan knows that filing an appellant’s
brief within the reglementary period is critical. Third, the
records also disclose Atty. San Juan’s lack of candor in dealing
with his client. The Court found Atty. San Juan in violation of
Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provide:
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
time to the client's request for information.
The Court resolved to suspend Atty. San Juan for
a period of one year and to deny his motion to be allowed to
return to the practice of law.
 Case: JOHNNY M. PESTO vs. MARCELITO M. MILLO
(ADM. CASE NO. 9612. March 13, 2013.)
FACTS:
Johnny Pesto, a Canadian national, charged Atty.
Marcelito M. Millo with conduct unbecoming an officer of the
Court, misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and
incompetence and negligence in the performance of his duty as
a lawyer.
Johnny averred that his wife Abella retained the services
of Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land
to her name, and the adoption of her niece; that among other
transgressions, Atty. Millo repeatedly gave them false
information to explain his inability to complete the transfer of
title; that Atty. Millo likewise made them believe that the tax for
the property had been paid, but they found out that he had not
yet paid the tax. Likewise, Johnny blamed Atty. Millo for letting
the adoption case be considered closed due to two years of
inaction.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Millo violated Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Millo’s
acceptance of the sums of money from Johnny and Abella to
enable him to attend to the transfer of title and to complete the
adoption case initiated the lawyer-client relationship between
them. From that moment on, Atty. Millo assumed the duty to
render professional service to them as his clients. Yet, he failed
to discharge his duty. He was inefficient and negligent in going
about what the professional service he had assumed required
him to do. The Supreme Court further explained that Atty. Millo
had the obligation to serve his clients with competence and
diligence. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
expressly so demanded of him, to wit:
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
The Court held Atty. Millo guilty of violating Canon 18,
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath and suspended him from the practice of law for a
period of six months.
Case: SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARNEL
CAPISTRANO, respondent. (A.C. No. 6903, Apr 16 2012)
FACTS:
An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by
complainant charging the respondent of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. On January 2005, Suzette and her
friend, Ricky S. Tuparan, engaged in the legal services of Atty.
Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their
respective marriages allegedly for a fee of P140,000.00 each. On
the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into
by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an
acceptance fee of P30,000.00, appearance fee of P2,500.00 per
hearing and P2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty.
Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare an additional
amount as payment for the filing fee, summons, fiscals,
psychiatrist and commissioner. Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano
the total amount of PhP78,500.00. For every payment made,
she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her
case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases
were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon
City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from
the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition
has yet been filed. Suzette demanded the refund of the total
amount of P78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano offered to return
P63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred
expenses in the filing of Tuparan case, to which she agreed.
However, Atty. Capistrano only returned P5,000.00, then
refused to communicate with her.
In the Report and Recommendation dated April 2007, the
IBP-CBD found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients’
interests by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her
case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the
amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
reads:
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxx
RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
RULE 18.04 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.
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that
he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights.
Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention makes
the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client
and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the
legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not
justify neglect in handling one’s case because it is settled that a
lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently
handle.
To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to
lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They
must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession,
the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this standard, the
Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by
imposing an appropriate penalty.
Case: STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA BRUNET vs. ATTY.
RONALD GUAREN
(A.C. No. 10164, Mar 10 2014)
FACTS:
The Brunet spouses filed a complaint against Atty.
Guaren. According to them, they engaged his services for the
titling of a residential lot they acquired, to which Atty. Guaren
asked for P10,000.00 as expenses for titling. He also asked for
an advance payment of P1,000.00 and took all the pertinent
documents for the titling of the lot. Respondent again asked for
advance payment of P6,000.00 which they gave on March 1997,
but from 1997 to 2001, despite several reminders, Atty. Ronald
failed to complete his undertaking and merely alleged that the
titling was in progress. Thus, they demanded the refund of the
amount they gave, to which Ronald agreed, provided that
P5,000.00 be deducted as his professional fee.
Despite the existence of their lawyer-client relationship,
Respondent made a special appearance against them in a case
pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court of Oslob,
Cebu.
 The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren
liable for accepting the titling of complainants’ lot and receiving
payments but failed to perform his obligation after 5 long years,
as well as for appearing in a case against the complainants
without securing their written consent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Guaren is in violation of Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for being incompetent
and negligent.
HELD:
Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what
they owe to themselves.
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence. In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that
he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his
acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to
file the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse
of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client
with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him.
Case: JOSE ALLAN TAN vs. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE
(A.C. No. 7766, Aug 5, 2014)
FACTS:
The case is an administrative complaint for disbarment
filed by complainant Jose Allan Tan against respondent Pedro
S. Diamante, charging him of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the lawyer’s oath for failing to keep his client
informed of the status of the case, among others.
Complainant engaged in the services of respondent in a
case for partition of property against the heirs of his illegitimate
father, the late Luis Tan. Respondent, though notified of the
dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action and
insufficiency of evidence quite early, failed to notify complainant
who had only discovered such when he visited the former’s
office who thereafter asked him for payment of appeal fees and
other costs. Later on, the appeal was dismissed after having
been filed beyond the reglementary period provided by law,
which the respondent did not disclose to complainant and,
instead, showed complainant an Order purportedly issued by
the RTC directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing
to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.04 of Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. As an officer of
the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of
whatever important information he may have acquired affecting
his client’s case. He should notify his client of any adverse
decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an
appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the
developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and
loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. In the case at bar,
clearly, respondent failed to exercise the required skill, care,
and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess
and exercise in such matters of professional employment.
Case: REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs. ATTY. MERCEDES
BUHAYANG-MARGALLO
(A.C. No. 10537, Feb 3, 2015)
FACTS:
The case is a Petition for Review filed by respondent Atty.
Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo assailing the Resolution of the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
affirming her violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, among others.
Respondent was hired by complainant Reynaldo Remirez
as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title when the
former contacted him as per a referral from a friend of his
sister, offering her legal services on the condition that she be
given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead of
attorney’s fees plus Php1,000 per court appearance.
After several follow ups, respondent informed
complainant that his appeal had been denied to his failure to
establish his filiation with his alleged father, the basis of his
claim. Respondent made it appear that the case was dismissed
on the merits when, in truth, she failed to file the Appellant’s
Brief on time. This was discovered by complainant after
personally going to the Court of Appeals.
Respondent contends that the she had only agreed to
take on the case after complainant’s mother begged her to do
so, and had taken it for free save for the Php1,000 travel
expense per hearing, claimed that she had candidly informed
complainant and his mother that they only had 50% chance of
winning the case, and denied the contingent fee of 30% of the
land value of the said land. Furthermore, her defense on her
failure to immediately inform complainant of the unfavorable
Decision of the Court of Appeals was that her eight year-old
daughter had played with her phone and accidentally erased all
her contacts.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The lack of
communication and coordination between respondent and
complainant was palpable but was not due to the lack of
diligence of her client. Respondent failed to discharge her duties
with the requisite diligence as provided by the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection there with shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to client’s request for
information.
Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer
interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse and there was
no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her
client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation
as counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent had
failed to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant’s
interest, which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a
member of the legal profession.
 Case: EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI, JR.
(A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015)
FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed by complainant
Eduardo A. Maglente, against respondent Atty. Delfin R.
Agcaoili, Jr. praying that the latter be directed to return the
amount of P48,000.00 that he received from the former.
Complainant, as President of “Samahan ng mga Maralitang
Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated”(Samahan), alleged that he
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a
case in order to determine the true owner of the land being
occupied by the members of Samahan. In connection therewith,
he gave respondent the aggregate amount of P48,000.00
intended to cover the filing fees for the action to be instituted,
as evidenced by a written acknowledgment executed by
respondent himself. Despite the payment, respondent failed to
file an action in court. When confronted, respondent explained
that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the
filing fees in court. Thus, complainant asked for the return of
the money, but respondent claimed to have spent the same and
even demanded more money.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for the acts complained of.
HELD:
Yes. A lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him
by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he
must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that complainant
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing a
case in court, and in connection therewith, gave the amount of
P48,000.00 to answer for the filing fees. Despite the foregoing,
respondent failed to comply with his undertaking and offered
the flimsy excuse that the money he received from complainant
was not enough to fully pay the filing fees. Verily, when a lawyer
receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the
lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing
that the money was spent for the intended purpose.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr., is
found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16,
and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his
receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Case: SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA vs. ATTY. OTILIO SY
BONGON
(A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015)
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of
respondent for the purpose of titling and/or reconstituting the
titles to the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta. In
connection therewith, she claimed to have given the aggregate
amount of P112,499.55 to respondent. However, respondent
failed to update complainant regarding the status of the matters
referred to him. Thus, complainant terminated her engagement
with respondent and demanded for the return of P112,499.55,
but to no avail. In his defense, the respondent asserts that he
only received P55,000.00 and that the rest of the money was
received by a certain Rowena Delos Reyes-Kelly who was not an
employee of his law firm. Furthermore, he averred that he had
already offered to return the amount of P30,000.00 to
complainant, claiming that he already earned the fees for legal
services in the amount of P20,000.00 for having studied the
matter entrusted to him and drafted the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition (Deed) that underwent several revisions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for the acts complained of.
HELD:
Yes. It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the
cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence,
care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer’s
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client
constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
CPR which reads:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
In view of respondent’s old age, his condition of having
undergone a triple heart bypass surgery, and considering that
this is his first offense, the Court concurs with the
recommendations of the IBP. WHEREFORE, respondent is
found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16,
and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) month and is ORDERED
to return to complainant the amount of P55,000.00 he received.
CANON 19
Case: ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES vs. ATTY. JACINTO D.
JIMENEZ
(A.C. No. 6691. April 27, 2007.)
FACTS:
Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of
Luz J. Henson while Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, herein
respondent, is the counsel for the Heirs of Henson. After the
probate proceedings, the RTC issued an order directing Briones
to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to
their shares. Atty Briones refused to deliver the estate.
Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a
criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against Atty.
Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order.
Atty. Briones filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Jimenez for forum shopping and violation of Canon 19, Rule
19.01 and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did
not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing
the criminal complaint against herein complainant after the
latter ignored the demand letters sent to him. Atty. Jimenez
also contends that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of
utmost prudence and capability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Jimenez violated Canons 19 and 12
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
The Supreme Court agrees with the Office of the Bar
Confidant that Atty. Jimenez is not guilty of forum shopping.
Records show that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the
late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 70349 assailing the Order of March 12, 2002
appointing the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as
auditor; and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
71488 assailing the Order of April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed
the payment of commission to complainant. It is evident that
there is identity of parties but different causes of action and
reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of forum
shopping
On the violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Court finds that there is sufficient ground in
support of complainant’s claim that respondent violated Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering
that complainant did not reply to the demand letters,
respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his
clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. Atty.
Jimenez should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC
for the execution of the subject Order, instead of immediately
resorting to the filing of a criminal complaint against the
complainant. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently
premature.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the
same Canon provides that a lawyer’s performance of his duties
towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule
19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jimenez is found GUILTY and
REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Case: ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA vs. ATTY.
OSCAR PAGUINTO
(A.C. No. 6273, March 15, 2010)
FACTS:
Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the
allegations that respondent: promoted or sued a groundless,
false or unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same;
disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for law and the
legal profession; did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor toward his professional colleague and engaged in
harassing tactics against opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 –
A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds
of the law; and ruined and damaged not only the Gen. Mariano
Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the
entire water-consuming community as well.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred from
the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, and Rule 12.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the
Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the
Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been
suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation
of the Code. It appears, however, that respondent has not
reformed his ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time.
 Case: VALERIANA U. DALISAY vs. ATTY. MELANIO
MAURICIO, JR.
(A.C. No. 5655. January 23, 2006)
FACTS:
Valeriana U. Dalisay engaged respondent’s services as
counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044. Notwithstanding his receipt of
documents and attorneys fees, respondent never rendered legal
services. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money, but
respondent refused. The Supreme Court in its Decision, found
respondent guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and
suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six
months.
Upon learning of the Court’s decision, respondent verified
the status of Civil Case No. 00-044. He learned of the trial
court’s Decision holding that the tax declarations and title
submitted by complainant are not official records. Thereupon,
respondent filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against
complainant alleging that complainant offered tampered
evidence. The respondent then filed a motion for
reconsideration for the Supreme Court Decision and argued
that complainant did not engage his services as counsel, and
that complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil Case No.
00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be
granted.
HELD:
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Court explained that once a lawyer accepts money from a
client, an attorney-client relationship is established. Assuming
that complainant indeed offered falsified documentary evidence,
it will not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent. Consistent
with the mandate of Canon 19 that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal and only within the bounds of the law, Rule
19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides that a lawyer who
has received information that his clients has, in the course of
the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same,
and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such
client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this
Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted
complainant and asked her to rectify her fraudulent
representation. If complainant refuses, then he should
terminate his relationship with her.
Case: MARIA CRISTINA PITCHER vs. ATTY. RUSTICO B.
GAGATE
(A.C. No. 9532. October 8, 2013.)
FACTS:
Complainant claimed to be the legal wife of the late David
B. Pitcher who owned 40% of the shareholdings in Consulting
Edge, Inc. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband,
complainant engaged the services of respondent.
Complainant and respondent met with Katherine
Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss
the settlement of David’s interest in the company. Prior to
another scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by
respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the premises.
Bantegui expressed disappointment over these actions then
asked them to leave and refused to give them a duplicate key.
Respondent caused the change in the lock of the office door.
This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint for grave coercion.
The Prosecutor’s Office issued a Resolution finding probable
cause to charge complainant and respondent. Respondent
advised complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the
motions in court. However, respondent stopped communicating
with complainant. Failing to reach respondent, complainant
filed this administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent failed to
exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s cause
since he: first, failed to represent her competently; and, second,
abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case
against them was pending.
Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code states:
CANON 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding.
The Court found Atty. Gagate guilty of violating
Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended
from the practice of law for a period of three years.
Case: DOLORES BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN MACASA
(A.C. No. 7815, Jul 23 2009)
FACTS:
Complainant availed respondent’s legal services in
connection with the case of her son,with an agreement that the
respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorney’s Fees.
The complainant paid the amount after three installments but
respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the installments.
Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 from
complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her
(complainant’s) son. Again, respondent did not issue any
receipt. However, she later found out that respondent did not
remit the amount to the court. Complainant then demanded the
return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but
the latter ignored her.
Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of
complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the
services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense.
Hence, the disbarment case Complainant availed respondent’s
legal services in connection with the case of her son, with an
agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30,000
as Attorney’s
Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments
but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the
installments.
Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 from
complainant as a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her
(complainant’s) son. Again, respondent did not issue any
receipt. However, she later found out that respondent did not
remit the amount to the court. Complainant then demanded the
return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but
the latter ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the
case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail
of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s
defense. Hence, the disbarment case Complainant availed
respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her
son, with an agreement that the respondent will handle the
case for P30,000 as Attorney’s
Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments
but respondent did not issue any receipt for any of the
installments.
On November 2004, complainant went to see respondent
on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant
wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services for the case of her
son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of
Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of RA 9165.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00
The following day, complainant made a partial payment
of P15,000 to respondent. A few days after, she gave him an
additional P10,000.00. She paid the P5,000.00 balance the day
after. On all occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.
A few days after, respondent received P18,000.00 from
complainant for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty
of her son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When
complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that
respondent did not remit the amount to the court.
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000.00 on
several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover,
respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and
complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense.
In an order dated July 2005, the CBD required
respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt
thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time
to file an answer dated August 2005, simply brushed aside the
complaint for being "baseless, groundless and malicious"
without offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be
given until September 2005 to submit his answer.
Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second
and third extensions of time praying to be given until November
2005 to submit his answer. He never did.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Macasa did acts in violation of
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court ruled that that the respondent violated Canon
19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that a lawyer must represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to
devote himself, particularly his time, knowledge, skills and
effort, to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy
thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability
to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his
client, save by the rules of law legally applied.
In this case, after accepting the criminal case against
complainant’s son and receiving his attorney’s fees, respondent
did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient
legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent
abandoned the cause of his client. Respondent’s lackadaisical
attitude towards the case of complainant’s son was
reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant’s son, it
also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel.
Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for
posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client,
respondent unduly impeded the latter’s constitutional right to
bail.
 CASE: Jon De Ysasi III vs. National Labor Relations
Commission (4th Division), Cebu City, and Jon De Ysasi
FACTS:
Jon De Ysasi III is the son of Jon De Ysasi. The elder
Ysasi is the owner of a hacienda in Negros Occidental while De
Ysasi III is employed by his father as the farm administrator. In
November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent a surgery and causing
him to be absent from work. He was confined and while he was
being treated from his infections he was terminated by his
father without due process. The younger De Ysasi filed against
his father for illegal dismissal before the National Labor
Relations Commission. However, His father contended that his
son’s absence has equated to abandonment of his work.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi abandoned his work.
HELD: No. The court held that for abandonment to be
constituted, there must be a) failure to report for work without
a valid and justifiable reason, and b) a clear intention to sever
the employee-employer relationship through overt acts. No such
requisites are present in this case.
The court was also disappointed by the conduct of
both counsels of the parties stating that Canon 19, which
provides that a lawyer must handle his case with zeal, must be
read with Canon 1, which provides that a lawyer shall
encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it
will admit of a fair settlement. It is just as much their
responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable
efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and
especially in consideration of the direct and immediate blood
ties between their clients. The court explicitly reiterates that the
useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but
also to avoid it by advising settlements.
CASE: Spouses Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel Elayda
(A.C. No. 7907, October 26, 2013)
FACTS:
Petitioner spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda hired
respondent Attorney Emmanuel Elayda to represent them in a
civil case in 2006. In July of said year, petitioners to their
surprise received an unfavorable decision issued by the court,
resulting to the forfeiture of their car. The petitioners claim that
respondent Attorney did not inform them of the schedule of
hearing and that no order of judgment was given to them
despite having receipt of the order dated February 2006.
Moreover, they allege that they have been deprived of their right
to present evidence and their right to appeal to said case
because of the gross negligence of their counsel.
Respondent Atty. Elayda contended that it was the
petitioner’s lack of participation and cooperation that lead to
the adverse decision of the court and that they were the ones
who did not appear in court given that Atty. Elayda was just in
another courtroom and asked the stenographer to notify him if
the spouses have arrived. Spouses have never inquired as to the
status of their case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Attorney Elayda should be given a
disciplinary action.
HELD: Yes. While it is true that communication is a shared
responsibility in the client and lawyer relation, it is the prime
duty of the counsel to inform the client of the status of their
case in court and the orders which have been issued by the
court. He cannot just wait for his clients to make an inquiry
about the status of the case, for close communication is vital for
its preparation. Also, a lawyer’s attendance must not be
dependent to the attendance of his clients. Thus, his excuse
that he did not appear because the spouses did not appear
cannot be countenanced. Among others, Atty. Elayda has
violated Canon 19 of the Code of professional Responsibility
which provides: “A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law.” A 6 month suspension was
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors and was
subsequently adopted by the court.
Case: ALEX ONG vs. ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO
(A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002)
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty.
Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer. While a lawyer owes fidelity to the
cause of his client, he must do so only within the bounds of the
law. In this case, he has not exercised good faith because he
tried to coerce the complainant to comply with his letter
demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter.
When complainant did not heed his warning, the respondent
maliciously filed a string of "manufactured" criminal and
administrative cases which did not have a bearing to the cause
of his client against the former to blackmail him or extort
money from him, in violation of Canon 19. The respondent
offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any
information against the complainant so he would have a
leverage in his actions against the latter. The complainant
branded the respondent's tactics as "highly immoral,
unprofessional and unethical, constituting malpractice of law
and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer. Respondent was
directed to submit his comment on the complaint lodged
against him. He did not file any. It appears that the respondent
did not appear before the investigating officer, to answer the
charges against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Unto is guilty of a conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer
HELD:
Considering the facts of the case, the Court find that
respondent has not exercised the good faith required of a lawyer
in handling the legal affairs of his client, The respondent offered
monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any
information against the complainant just so he would have a
leverage in his actions against the latter. His tactic is unethical
and runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
and he shall not do any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business. The respondent chose not to participate in the
proceedings against him. His nonchalance does not speak well
of him as it reflects his utter lack of respect towards the public
officers. The recommended penalty for the unprofessional
conduct of the respondent was one (1) month suspension or
reprimand. The Court believes that the same is too light vis-a-
vis the misconduct of the respondent. Respondent ATTY.
ELPIDIO D. UNTO is declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Case: RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL vs.
ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO
(A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010)
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members
of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc.
(RBCI) Bohol against respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido,
for "acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as
counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.
physically taking over the management and operation of the Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to
bank through force, violence and intimidation.". According to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's
RBCI, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. cause, is condemnable and unethical. The Court finds
Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix respondent GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and
Rengel, through force and intimidation, with the use of armed 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective
RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank upon finality of the Decision.
manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their own
staff to run the bank. Respondent denied RBCI’s allegation and
explained that he acted in accordance with the authority
granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the
lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI.
Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid
change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination
notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply and to
ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations,
respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the
bank to ask Garay to step down.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The Court affirmed IBP Board of Governors' resolution. It
is the lawyer's 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. 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. 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. His conduct ought to and