ADARNE vs ALDBABA FACTS: Spouses Cumpio filed an action for forcible entry against herein complaint Cesario Adarne, Aning Arante, Arante, and Miguel Inokando Inokando with the ustice ustice of the !eace of Alang"ala Alang"alang ng #eyte$ Atty$ Isauro Isauro Marmita represented represented the defendants defendants who raised the issue of ownership ownership of the land in %uestion$ ustice of the !eace dismissed the complaint for lack of &urisdiction$ plaintiffs again appealed to the Court of First Instance of #eyte Attys$ Arturo Arturo Mirales and and 'eneroso Casimpan Casimpan filed the answer answer for the defendants$ defendants$ At the hearing of the case on August August (, )*+), Cesario Cesario Adarne, Adarne, noting that his attorneys attorneys had not yet arried, preailed upon the respondent Atty$ -amian Aldaba, Aldaba, who was present in court to attend the trial of an electoral case, to appear as counsel for them$ them $ The respondent, who is a third degree cousin of the complainant, agreed, and entered a special appearance$ appearance$ .pon noticing that the plaintiffs and their counsel were not also present in court, the respondent, instead of asking for a postponement, moed for the dismissal of the case$ This motion was granted and the case was again dismissed$ Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for the reconsideratio reconsideration n of the order, to which the respondent filed an opposition opposition in behalf of the defendants, and the motion was denied$ CA remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings$ on /ctober 01, )*+2 the respondent wasagain was again prevailed upon by the complainant to appear in his behalf. The respondent entered a "special appearance" for appearance" for the complainant and argued that the interest of &ustice would best be sered of the defendants were allowed to file an action for %uieting of title and the case heard &ointly with the pending action for forcible entry$ Finding merit in the argument, the court ordered the defendant Cesario Adarne to file an action for %uieting of title within one 3)4 week and the plaintiffs to answer the same within the reglementary period, after which both cases would be tried &ointly$ The hearing was was deferred until after the filing of the the action for %uieting %uieting of title$ /n une )(, )*+5, the court declared the defendants in default for their failure to appeal at the hearing set for that day $ 6ecause of this, Adarne against the respondent Atty$ -amian 7$ Aldaba an Administrat ie action against the respondent attorney for gross gross negligence and misconduct, for failure to give his entire devotion to the interest of his client, arm !eal in the . maintenance and defense of his rights, and eertion of his utmost learning and ability in the prosecution and defense of his client, and for not ta#ing steps to protect the interests of his client in the face of an adverse decision. $%%&E' ()N resp atty. ALDABA is gulity for such misconduct* +ELD' The &udgment by default rendered against the complainant cannot be attributed to the respondent attorney$ he blame lies ith the complainant for having engaged the services of several layers to handle his case ithout formally ithdraing the authority he had given to them to appear in his behalf as to place the responsibility upon the respondent. The rule followed on matters of substitution of attorneys as laid down by this Court is that no substitution of attorneys will be allowed unless there be filed: 3)4 a written application for such substitution8 304 the written consent of the client8 314 the written consent of the attorney substituted8 and 324 in case such written consent can not be secured, there must be filed with the application proof of serice of notice of such motion upon the attorney to be substituted, in the manner prescribed by the rules$ $t as neither gross negligence nor omission to have entertained such belief. An attorney is not bound to eercise etraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and s#ill. -A%E D$%$%%ED. •
niece, ulieta !$ Alegon=a8 Alegon=a8 that both women refused to abide with the -ecision of udge >abong of the TC ordering the partition of the properties left by complainant
•
• • • •
•
•
•
The complaint was referred to the I6!$ I6! Commissioner >aarro issued seeral orders to respondent directing him to file his answer to the complaint, but he failed to do so$ ?e only sent his secretary to represent him during the proceedings$ I6! Commissioner >aarro >aarro submitted to the I6! 6oard of 'oernors her eport and ecommendation %uoted as follows: •
•
•
that respondent ignored all the /rders issued by this Commission and neither did he comply with any of those /rders$ espondent een failed to submit the responsie pleadings he himself re%uested in his motion and only sent his assistant secretary to represent him in the scheduled hearings of this case$ no pleadings was submitted despite respondent
It was complainant who submitted the letters of the respondent ;stelita eyes and uliet Alegon=a but there were no proofs when they sent and when the same were receied by the addressee$ the complaint submitted by the complainant as only a format in the sense that it that it as not signed by the respondent8 respondent 8 the TC 6ranch >o$ was left blank8 there was no Ciil Case >o$ and there was no proof that said pleading as filed hich amounts only to a mere scrap of paper and not a pleading or authenticated document in the legal parlance. As it is, nothing had been done by the respondent for the complainant as his client for the legal fees he collected hich as paid by the complainan complainantt as reflected in the receipts issued by the respondent in handritten forms and signed by him. $%%&E' ()N Resp Atty 0itan is liable for 0ilation of -anon 37 of the -2R* +ELD' (hen respondent accepted the amount of 234,555.55 from complainant, it as understood that he agreed to ta#e up the latter6s case and that an attorney8client relationship beteen them as established. From then on, it was e@pected of him to sere his client, herein complainant, with competence and attend to his cause with fidelity, care and deotion$ The act of receiing money as acceptance fee for legal serices in handling complainantA#T:
RE/E% vs 0$AN 1A-%' in une 099), complainant Carlos eyes hired the serices of respondent Atty$ eremias eremias 7itan for the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint against his sister"in"law, sister"in"law, ;stelita eyes, and the latter
Atty$ eremias eremias $ 7itan tan is hereby declared declared guilty of iolation iolation of -anon -anon 37 of the -ode of 2rofessional Responsib Responsibility ility and is %&%2ENDED from the practice of la for a period of si <=> months effectie upon notice of this -ecision$ -ecision$ ?e is ordered is ordered to return to complainant within fie 354 days from notice the sum of 234,555.55 with interest of )0B per annum$
%AN$A?) vs 1)@A%
A. ELENA NEBRE@A vs A/ RE)NAL
1A-%'
1A-%'
An e@pulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they hae illegally remoed from the union 3F;.FA4 membership Mr$ !aulino Salador$
complainant filed a Complaint before the C6! of the I6! against respondent$ Complainant alleged that sometime in March 0992, she engaged respondents serices to file her petition for annulment$ She paid in cash and in checks,0 the arious fees he asked from her on seeral occasions which totalled !55,999$99$
•
The lower court resoled in faor of Salador and ordered the complainants to pay, &ointly and seerally, Mr$ Salador$ •
The case was then eleated to the Court of Appeals$ The complainants lost in their petition at the Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their counsel, Atty. 1oas to anser the civil complaint on an epulsion case.
After paying respondent, howeer, complainant did not receie any word from him with regard to the status of her petition for annulment other than his claim that they needed to wait for her appointment with the psychologist ealuation$
•
Atty$ Fo&as assured them that eerything was in order and he had already answered the complaint$ ?oweer, the appellants soon discoered that he neer answered it after all because, according to him, he was a very busy man. Atty$ Fo&as admitted his mistakeD in failing to file an answer for the e@pulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration$ ?oweer, such motion for reconsideration was denied$ Atty$ Fo&as defended his negligence with the reason that the case was a losing cause after all$ Atty$ Fo&as also asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his serices as counsel for the complainants and for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant$ -omplainants then filed for a disbarment case. $%%&E'
•
•
Ehether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer +ELD' /es. he %upreme -ourt upheld ' Canon )2 of the Code of !rofessional esponsibility$ /nce he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him$ This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and eery remedy and defense that is authori=ed by the law of the land and he may e@pect his lawyer to assert eery such remedy or defense$ In his motion for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent e@plained his non"filing of the re%uired answer by impliedly inoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large olume and pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and e@cusable neglect due to his oer=ealousness to %uestion the denial order of the trial court$
/n April 2, 0995, respondent told complainant that her petition for annulment was dismissed for lack of eidence$ ?e then again asked for sums of money, on separate occasions, totalling !05,*99$99, to pay for the psychological test, the sheriff
•
Complainant also found out that resp used fictitious address$
•
complainant suspect that he did not file any petition for annulment at all.
In his answer , respondent denied haing been engaged to handle her petition for annulment and haing been paid therefor$ $%%&E' ()N Resp layer violated -anon 37 of the -2R for negligence in his duties* +ELD' /es.
-anon 37 of the -ode of 2rofessional Responsibility hich reuires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, ith diligence and, more specifically, Rule 37.59 thereof hich provides' :A layer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection thereith shall render him liable.;
In this case, respondent clearly received his acceptance fee, among others, and then completely neglected his client6s cause$ Moreoer, he failed to inform complainant of the true status of the petition$ ?is act of receiing money as acceptance fee for legal serices in handling the complainants case and, subse%uently, failing to render the serices, was a clear iolation of Canon )G of the Code of !rofessional esponsibility$
Canon )5 of the Code of !rofessional esponsibility e@pressly proides: A lawyer, when adising his client, shall gie a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client
!;>A#T:
!;>A#T: RE2R$ANDED AND AD)N$%+ED to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
Atty$ 6en&amin eonal be suspended from the practice of la for one <3> year $ The order to return the amounts receied from complainant is hereby -;#;T;-$ ?)NCALE% vs A/. $?&EL %ABA-A@AN 1A-%' Sometime in /ctober )**2, complainants were informed by the egister of -eeds of C-/ City that the duplicate of title coering their lands were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who
in turn entrusted the same to respondent espondent admitted and confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody and has een shown the same 3to4 the complainant Salud 6$ !antanosas but when demanded 3sic4 to delier the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, respondent refused without any &ustification to gie their titles 3and4 when confronted, respondent challenged the complainants to file any case in any court een in the SC$ espondents cheallenge to them is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue adantage of his legal profession oer the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the complainants$ -ue to his challenge the complainants sent a letter to the SC for enlightenment for which the Supreme Court re%uired )* legible copies of a erified complaint$ In spite of repeated demands, respondent still failed and refused without &ustification to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, which act is tantamount to illful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations emanating from his professional capacity as a layer ho had sorn to uphold la and ustice, to the preudice and damage of the complainants /n March )**5, the Court re%uired respondent to comment on the complaint$ 6ut he denied on those allegations$ From the foregoing proceedings taken on this matter, the Court finds that respondent admitted having ta#en possession of the certificates of title of complainants but refused to surrender the same despite demands made by the latter. It follows, therefore, that it was incumbent upon him to show that he was legally &ustified in doing so$ Instead, all he did was to inform this Court that Hhis obligation to delier the certificates to Mr$ Samto .y e @cludes the deliery of said certificates to anyone else$H
2ENA 0% A2AR$-$) 1A-%' Atty$ #olito '$ Aparicio appeared as legal counselfor 'race C$ ?ufana in an illegal dismissal case before >#C against complainant Fernando Martin !ena$ ?ufana is praying for claim for separation pay, but !ena re&ected the claim as baseless$ Thereafter, Aparicio sent !ena a letter reiterating his clients claim for separation pay$ Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should 2ena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement,he ould file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as ell as multiple charges such as ta evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due toviolations of las. $ssue' E/> Aparicio iolated Canon )* 3and )*$9)4 of theC!, en&oining eery lawyer to represent his client with =eal within the bounds of the law +ELD' /E% Rule 3.53.
espondent submitted @ero@ copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to e@plain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, for the purpose of subdiiding the property$ ?oweer, an e@amination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondents claim$ In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different from each other$
"A layer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the laful obectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding."
As a layer, respondent should #no that there are laful remedies provided by la to protect the interests of his client$ The records do not show that he or his client hae aailed of said remedies$
.nder Canon )*, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adersaries of his client designed to secure leerage to compel the adersaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyers client$
he -ourt finds that respondent has not eercised the good faith and diligence reuired of layers in handling the legal affairs of their clients$
$n the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating -anon 3, but they alsoamount to blac#mail
$%%&E: E/> esp #awyer is liable for iolation of Canon )* of the C!
6lackmail is Hthe e@tortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or e@posure or opposition in the public prints,Jobtaining of alue from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his pre&udice$H
-anon 3, Rule 3.53 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful ob&ecties of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain an improper adantage in any case or proceeding$ espondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same$ !;>A#T: %&%2ENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title hae been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by complainants, or can present a &udicial order or appropriate legal authority &ustifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates$ ?e is further (ARNED that a repetition of the same or similar or any other administratie misconduct will be punished more seerely$
The letter in this case contains more than &ust a simple demand to pay$ It een contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which hae nothing to do with his clients claim for separation pay$ Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the C!$ !;>A#T: RE2R$ANDED, with the ST;> EA>I>' that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more seerely$
