•
Requisites for Admissions to the Bar
•
Lawyers Oath – Importance of the Lawyers Oath
•
In Re: Al C. Argosino 270 SCRA 26
•
Orbes v. Deciembre
•
De Guzman v. De Dios
•
Code of Professional Responsibility (Promulgated June 21, 1988)
•
Donton vs Tansingco
•
Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Espiritu
•
Roberto Soriano vs Atty Atty. Manuel Manuel Dizon
•
V. BAUTISTA BAUTI STA vs. ATTY. SERGIO SERG IO E. BERNABE BE RNABE
•
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPS VILLANUEVA vs. ATTY. SALUD P. BERADIO
•
Samala v. Valencia
•
ST. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) ( SLU-LHS) FACULTY FACULTY and STAFFvs. ATTY ATTY. ROLANDO ROL ANDO C. DELA CRUZ
•
Advincula v.Macabata
•
Ronquilio, et. al v. Chavez
•
Ting-Dumali Ting-Dumali vs Torres
•
A. ALCANTAR ALC ANTARA A vs. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO
•
Dizon vs. Lambino
•
Lijauco v. Terrado
•
PAGCOR vs. CARANDANG
•
Re: Report on the Financial Financial Audit Conducted on the Books B ooks of Accounts of Atty. Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV, RTC, Oras, Eastern Samar
•
J GUEVARR GUEVARRA A vs. ATTY ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA EALA
•
Canon 2
•
Canon 5
•
Sps. Williams v. Enriquez 2. Juan Dulalia, Jr., vs Atty Atty.. Pablo C. Cruz
•
• • •
Canon 6 CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS. Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action. Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere interfere with his public duties. Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. Hyussen v. Guttierez (AC#6707) PCGG v. Sandiganbayan (Apr. 12, 2005) Lim- Santiago v. Sagucio (AC#6705)
Facts: This is a disbarment disbarment complaint complaint against against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio Sagucio for violating violating Rule Rule 15.03 of of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as government prosecutor. Lim-Santiago contends that Saguvio is guilty of representing conflicting interests. The latter being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries, knew the operations of Taggat very well. Sagucio should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees regarding non-payment of salaries and wages.Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the complaint. Sagucio claims that when the criminal complaint was filed, respondent had resigned from Taggat for more than five years. He asserts that he no longer owed his undivided loyalty to Taggat; and that it was his sworn duty to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation. In addition, he also asserts that
no conflicting interests exist because he was not representing Taggat employees or complainant. Respondent claims he was merely performing his official duty as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. Sagucio also argues that Lim-Santiago failed to establish that his act was tainted with personal interest, malice and bad faith.
Issue: Whether or not being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts Sagucia’s role as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. Ruling: Clearly, as a former Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat, Sagucio undoubtedly handled the personnel and labor concerns of Taggat. TThe issues, therefore, in I.S. No. 97-240, are very much familiar with him. While the issues of unpaid salaries pertain to the periods 1996-1997, the mechanics and personalities in that case are very much familiar with Respondent. A lawyer owes something to a former client. Sagucio owes to Taggat, a former client, the duty to “maintain inviolate the client’s confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him.” While Sagucio argues that as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, he does not represent any client or any interest except justice. It should not be forgotten, however, that a lawyer has an immutable duty to a former client with respect to matters that he previously handled for that former client. In this case, matters relating to personnel, labor policies, and labor relations that he previously handled as Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat. Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government employees engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession is suspension for six months and one day to one. The Court find this penalty appropriate for Sagucio’s violation in this case of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was suspended from the practice of law for six months effective upon finality of this Decision. •
Canon 7 CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute. Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Samala vs. Palaña (Adm. Case No. 6595, April 15, 2005, Justice Azcuna) FACTS: This is a complaint filed by Joseph Samala against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana for alleged fraudulent activities that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Due to the personal representations and assurances of respondent, complainant joined the company of First Imperial Resources, Inc. (FIRI), believing that it is a reputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has been in the foreign exchange business for 13 years. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment and sent FIRI a letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment amounting to US$10,000 and giving FIRI 10 days to prepare the money. He was given a check w/c was dishonored because it was DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds). He was reassured over and over again that it will be funded but was disappointed. Complainant filed for Estafa against FIRI’s President Paul Desiderio but such person identity was identified to be fictitious. Respondent was instrumental in the issuance of the check signed by the alleged President of FIRI, Paul Desiderio, whose whereabouts could not be located and whose identity was unknown for respondent was the one who handed personally to the herein complainant the check which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, when it was the very respondent, Atty. Palana, who allegedly assured that the check was funded. Respondent was also one of those alleged officers of FIRI who assured complainant that his investment was directly placed in a reputable company. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Mauricio has violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: Rule 7.03 ' A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. RULING: Respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana is found GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. It is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and lessened the •
confidence of the public in the honesty and integrity of the same. •
Canon 8 CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Yap-Paras vs Atty. Paras (AC#4947) FACTS: •
•
A Petition was filed by Rosa Yap-Paras praying for the disbarment of her estranged husband Atty. Justo Paras on alleged acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer.
•
On February 9, 1965, the children of Ledesma de Jesus Paras-Sumabong, executed a Special Power of Attorney prepared by the respondent to sell parcels of land located in Matobato, Bindoy, Negros Oriental giving authority to their mother to sell the subject real properties.
•
Ledesma executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Aurora Dy-Yap.
•
Rosa found out that a free patent title to the aforesaid property was issued in respondent’s name and also a Quitclaim/Renunciation of Property Rights and Interest Over Real Property executed by Ledesma de Jesus.
•
Complainant alleged that the aforementioned application was made by the respondent without her knowledge and consent and those acts of deceit, machinations and falsification of documents were deliberately willfully, and maliciously committed by the respondent.
•
In his Comment, respondent alleged that complainant was obviously not the owner of the properties and considering that the properties were applied for free patent titling during their marital union prior to its breakage, complainant was likewise a communal owner thereof and as such was also complaining against herself.
Respondent also alleges that the heirs are not Filipinos therefore not qualified to receive the patent grant. ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be disbarred or suspended. RULING: It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney. Regarding the argument that the heirs are not Filipinos, the Court held that the instant case is not the proper forum to address such issue. Furthermore, as correctly held by the Investigating Commissioner, “it is immaterial as to who instituted the complaint for as long as there was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.” Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a WARNING that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. •
Canon 10 CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
•
•
Samala v. Valencia (same C6 & L4)
Maligaya v. Doronilla (AC#6198) Facts: Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate General’s Service is administratively charged of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court during a hearing of a Civil Case No. Q-99-38778, an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel. At one point, during the civil case hearing on Feb 19, 2002 he stated that there was an agreement between the •
parties that if they withdraw the case against Dr. Maligaya, the latter will also withdraw all the cases against his clients. So, with that understanding, Dr. Maligaya even retired and is now receiving pension. The presiding Judge Daway, ordered Atty. Doronilla to put his statements in writing and “file the appropriate pleading.” Weeks passed but Atty. Doronilla submitted no such pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments. Thus, on April 2002 a complaint was filed against Atty. Doronilla in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for committing a violation ofCANON 10—A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. During the investigation, Atty. Doronilla admitted there is no agreement but there was a proposal to dismiss and to withdraw all the cases. He said that he said it “to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial”. In due time, investigating commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted a report and recommendation finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending that he be “suspended from the government military service as legal officer for a period of three months.” This was adopted and approved in toto by the IBP Board of Governors. Issue: WON Atty. Doronilla is in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and WON the suspension is proper. Held: Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated the lawyer’s oath to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court,” of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer’s duty to “never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The explanation submitted by Atty. Doronilla, remarkable only for its speciousness, cannot absolve him. There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among disputants that, in any way, makes it necessary under any circumstances for counsel to state as a fact that which is not true. The suspension referred to in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, means only suspension from the practice of law—it would be improper for the Court, as a penalty for a lawyer’s breach of legal ethics and the lawyer’s oath, his suspension from his employment in the Judge Advocate General’s Service. After all, the only purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronilla’s liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. There were also mitigating circumstances considered such as his admission to his deceit, the fact that there was no material damage to the complainant and it being his first offense. Thus, the penalty was amended to suspension from practice of law for two (2) months, with warning against repetition of similar misconduct. •
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. and E. C. GARCIA, vs. ATTY. A. E. REVILLA, JR., A.C. No. 7056 2006
September 13,
FACTS: Complainants charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) of DAR, the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a consolidated Decision in favor of petitioner/complainant [Plus Builders, Inc.], and against [tenants/farmers]. Tenants/farmers filed several verified pleadings as part of the records of DARAB cases above-mentioned alleging under oath that they were 'MAGSASAKANG NAMUMUWISAN' or mere tenants of subject properties, acknowledging the rights of the registered owners at that time, even before the ownership and title were transferred to Petitioner/ Complainant Plus Builders, Inc. On Dec[ember] 17, 1999, counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS who at that time was Atty. Damian S. J. Vellaseca, filed a pro-forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation x x x. As a result, PARAD did not give due course to the same. another counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, by the name of Atty. Willy G. Roxas, who represented himself as counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, filed a manifestation stating that he is representing TENANTS/FARMERS and alleged that they were 'bona fide' members of the [Kalayaan Development Cooperative] (KDC). Thereafter, he filed a Notice of Appeal on March 27, 2000 stating that they received the Decision on March 14, 2000 and alleged that the Decision is against the law and jurisprudence. On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing that there was a monetary judgment by way of Disturbance Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers, filed a 'Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment' After realizing that his motion failed to give him beneficial monetary gain from the PARAD judgment, a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus Damages dated July 18, 2001 was filed by Respondent before the DARAB Central Office, Quezon City, notwithstanding the fact that this instant case was appealed by another lawyer. Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, respondent had "maliciously concealed the defeat of his clients in the case before the PARAD of Cavite and the higher courts," in order to secure a temporary restraining order from the RTC of Imus, Cavite. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of the provincial adjudicator's Decision dated November 15, 1999.
Moreover, Commissioner Espina opined that the charge that respondent had been engaged in the unlawful practice of law was neither satisfactorily explained nor specifically denied by the latter. The failure of respondent to do so led to the presumption that the allegation was true.
HELD: Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide thus : "Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. 'Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.'" •
Canon 11 CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired. Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
•
Lacurom v. Atty. Jacoba (AC#5921)
•
Johnny Ng v. Atty. Alar (AC#7252)
Go a.k.a Jaime T. Gaisano v. Abrogar G.R. No. 145213, March 28, 2006 Azcuna, J.: Facts: International Exchange Bank opened a credit line in favor of Alberto Looyuko to which Jimmy Go executed a Surety Agreement binding himself solidarily for all the debts incurred under the credit line. The defendants failed to pay thus the Bank filed for the collection of sum of money before the RTC of Makati. All throughout the proceedings, Go was represented by Atty. Ronald Javier. On October 7, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision, finding Go and Looyuko jointly and severally liable for P96,000.00. The decision was received by Atty. Javier as counsel of record for Go on October 20, 1999. But prior to this receipt, on September 30,1999, Atty. Javier wrote to Go informing the latter that he was withdrawing his services as counsel. Go, however, formally released Atty. Javier only on October 29,1999 through a notice of termination which was attached to the “Entry of Appearance” filed with the RTC on November 5, 1999 by Go’s new counsel, Atty. Gregorio Caneda Jr. They filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 7, 1999 decision but was denied. Notice of Appeal was also filed but it was also denied on the ground that the reglementary period of has already expired on November 4, 1999. On March 6, 2000, Go filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 claiming that he should not be bound by the receipt of the decision of Atty. Javier who was no longer his counsel when the latter received the decision. On May 15, 2000, The Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit and upheld the decision of the trial court. The Court finds the conduct of the petitioner and his counsel very improper, specifically in making serious accusation against RTC Judge Abrogar. They claim that Abrogar and the others were in cahoots in their common objective to pin down Mr. Jimmy Go. Issue: Whether or not Atty Caneda Jr. will be held liable for the accusations as against Judge Abrogar. Held: Yes. Canon 11 provides that “A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.” The attack made as against Judge Abrogar is considered as a serious accusation that erodes the trust and confidence in our judicial system. For all their derogatory implications, they are clearly unsubstantiated and disrespectful to a member of the bench. Thus, Atty. Caneda Jr. and Jimmy Go were strictly warned not to make disrespectful statements as against a judge without evidence. The decision of the Court of Appeals regarding the collection suit was affirmed. •
•
Canon 12 CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready
with the original documents for comparison with the copies. Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause. Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination. Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate another. Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him. Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: (a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or (b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
Olivares and/or Olivarez Realty Co.v. Villalon AC No. 6323 April 13, 2007 Corona, J.: Facts: Olivares alleged that Villalon’s client Al Rasheed repeatedly sued him for violations of the lease contract which executed over a commercial apartment in Olivares Building in Paranaque. In defense, Villalon contend that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of his client. The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP found that Rasheed in repeatedly suing Olivares for the same cause of action and subject matter. The case was dismissed in 1999 for lack of interest to prosecute. Under Rule 17 Sec. 3 ROC, such has the effect on adjudication on merits. CBD recommended for suspension of Villalon for 6 months with a warning. IBP adopted the findings however modified the recommended penalty to a mere reprimand. Issue: Whether or not Villalon violated Canon 12 Held: Yes, Canon 12 which provides that: “A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.” A lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice. Lawyers have the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the Court’s processes. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade justice. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor. Decision: Reprimand insufficient. CBD recommendation six-month suspension is commensurate to violation however in view of respondents death the disciplinary case is moot and academic •
•
•
Sambajon et. al v. Suing (AC#7062) Canon 15 CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS. Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client. Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case. Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
•
Northwestern Univ vs Arquillo (AC#6632)
•
Gonzales vs Atty. Cabucana (AC#6836)
Perez vs Dela Torre (AC#6160) Facts: In a complaint dated July 30, 2003, Nestor Perez charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for representing conflicting interests. Perez alleged that he is the barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur; that in December 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities. Dela Torre went to the municipal building of Calabanga where the suspects were being detained and made representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions. It was unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim; that on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them. Dela Torre denied the accusations against him. He explained that while being detained at the Calabanga Municipal Police Jail, one of the accused sought his assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.2 On August 16, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report recommending that Atty. Danilo de la Torre be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of the legal profession for violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Issue: Whether or not Dela Torre is guilty of violationg 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ruling: In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Perez was able to prove by substantial evidence his charge against Atty. de la Torre. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were retained by both the suspects. Perez was able to show that at the time that Atty. de la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the victim’s family. This was declared by the victim’s daughter, Vicky de Chavez, who testified before Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur that her family retained the services of Atty. Dela Torre to prosecute the case against her father’s killers. She even admitted that she was present when Atty. de la Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on one occasion. This is proof that the respondent consciously offered his services to Avila and Ilo despite the fact that he was already representing the family of the victim Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy. By doing precisely the foregoing, and without any proof that Dela Torre secured the written consent of both parties after explaining to them the existing conflict of interest, respondent should be sanctioned. Thus, the Court found Dela Torre guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of the decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. •
•
Samala vs Valencia (same C6 & I1)
•
Canon 16 CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
VELEZ vs. ATTY. DE VERA A.C. No. 6697, Bar Matter 1227 and A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, 25 July 2006, Per Curiam (En Banc) Per Curiam: Before Us are three consolidated cases revolving around Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor and Executive Vice-President (EVP) Atty. Leonard de Vera. The first pertains to a disbarment case questioning Atty. de Vera's moral fitness to remain as a member of the Philippine Bar, the second refers to Atty. de Vera's letterrequest to schedule his oath taking as IBP National President, and the third case concerns the validity of his removal as Governor and EVP of the IBP by the IBP Board. •
The resolution of these cases will determine the national presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007. (yung disbarment case na lang ilagay ko para mas maiksi) FACTS: On April 11, 2005, Zoilo Antonio Velez filed a complaint for the suspension and/or disbarment of Atty. Leonard De Vera based on the latter's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension order rendered against him by the State Bar of California. Velez averred that Atty. De Vera lacked the moral competence necessary to lead the country's most noble profession. It appears that Atty. De Vera handled an insurance case in California involving a certain Julius Willis III who figured in an automobile accident in 1986. He was authorized by the elder Willis (father of Julius) for the release of the funds in settlement of the case. He then received a check in settlement of the case which he deposited to his personal account. An administrative case was filed against him before the State Bar of California and it was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three years. Thereafter, Atty. de Vera resigned from the California Bar which resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court of California. ISSUE: Whether or not there is substantial proof that Atty. De Vera violated Canon 11 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers HELD: Atty. De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. His letter-complaint praying for the disapproval of the Resolution removing him from the IBP Board and as IBP EVP is DISMISSED. The election of Atty. Salazar as IBP EVP for the remainder of the term 2003-2005 is AFFIRMED and he is DIRECTED to immediately take his oath of office and assume the Presidency of the IBP for the term 2005-2007. There is substantial evidence of malpractice on the part of Atty. De Vera independent of the recommendation of suspension by the hearing officer of the State Bar of California.The act of Atty. de Vera in holding on to his client’s money without the latter’s acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. It is clear that Atty. de Vera, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the profession betrays their trust and confidence. Respondent violated his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.
Arroyo-Posidio vs Vitan (AC#1666) Facts: In a verified complaint filed by Celia Arroyo-Posidio on June 14, 2002, she prayed for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan on account of deceit, fraud, dishonesty and commission of acts in violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant hired the services of Vitan, and she paid him P20,000.00 as legal fees. Vitan thereafter withdrew his appearance as counsel, thus forcing Posidio to hire the services of another lawyer. Sometime in August 1996, respondent contacted complainant and convinced complainant to file another case to recover her share in the alleged undeclared properties connected to the previous case that they were working on. Vitan demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees. After several months, however, Vitan failed to institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case and asked for the return of the P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite repeated demands. This prompted Posidio to file a case against Vitan. The trial court ruled in favor of the former, demanding the latter to pay the sum of P100,000.00 plus 12% interest and attorney’s fees. Vitan filed for an MR but was denied. A writ of execution was then approved by the court. He was then forced to issue a check amounting to P120,000 as payment. However, such check was dishonored. Despite written notice and demand, he refused to comply with his obligations. An administrative complaint for disbarment was then filed against Vitan. The Investigating Commissioner recommends that a penalty ranging from suspension for a period of six (6) months to one (1) year at the discretion of the Board be imposed with warning that repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty from suspension to reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will warrant a more severe penalty. •
Issue: Whether or not the penalty imposed is commensurate with the gravity of Vitan’s acts. Ruling: A lawyer should, at all times, comply with what the court lawfully requires. It bears stressing that the judgment against Vitan has long become final and executory. However, he has failed to comply with the order to pay complainant the amount of P100,000.00 as well as interest and attorney’s fees. His refusal to comply with the said order constitutes a willful disobedience to the court’s lawful orders. Vitan never denied the issuance of the check or refuted complainant’s allegations regarding the same. Neither did he question the veracity of complainant’s evidence which consisted of the check itself. Needless to say, the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondent’s infractions. Time and again, the Court held that the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers. Such conduct indicates the respondent’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.
It is clear from the foregoing that Vitan fell short of the exacting moral and ethical standards imposed on members of the legal profession. Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege. The Court believes that a penalty of suspension is called for under the circumstances. •
Meneses v. Macalino (AC#6651)
ADRIMISIN vs. ATTY. R. S. JAVIER A.C. No. 2591 Sept. 8, 2006 Facts: On 12 September 1983, Leticia Adrimisin filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ministry of Justice seeking the disbarment of Atty. Rolando S. Javier for deceit and misrepresentation. Complainant alleges that on 12 July 1983, she was introduced by her cousin, Pablo Adrimisin, to respondent. She needed the help of a lawyer in having her son-in-law, Alfredo Monterde who was charged with the crime of qualified theft, released from the Caloocan City Jail. Complainant claims that respondent advised her to file a bail bond. Complainant informed respondent that her only money was P500. Complainant contends that respondent received the money, issued a receipt and promised that Monterde would be released from jail the following day. Complainant also alleges that respondent failed to keep his promise in having Monterde released. Complainant went to respondent's office several times but it seemed that respondent was avoiding her. Monterde was later released upon settlement of the case with his employer. Complainant claims that she demanded for the return of the P500 but respondent failed to return this amount. Respondent did not file any comment or answer. He only appeared in the investigative hearings conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG"). Respondent, in his testimony, claims he was not hired by complainant as legal counsel. Respondent alleges complainant only asked his help to secure a bail bond. Respondent admits he received P500 for the bail bond and called up Carlos Alberto ("Alberto"), an insurance agent. Respondent claims he gave the P500 to Alberto. However, the amount was not sufficient to pay for the bond. Respondent denies that he promised to have Monterde released immediately. Respondent claims he advised complainant to get back her money directly from Alberto. Alberto, the insurance agent, was presented during the hearing. He testified that on 20 July 1983, respondent came to him to secure a bail bond for qualified theft. Alberto showed a copy of the personal bail bond dated 20 July 1983, issued by Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. ("Philippine Phoenix Surety") with a premium ofP940 and costs of documentary stamps, notarial fees and clearances at P279 for a total of P1,219. Alberto claimed he issued a genuine bond but it was not filed in court because complainant failed to pay the balance. The bail bond which was marked as Exhibit "1" contained a stamped "Limitation of Liability" clause. The clause states "Authorized limit of the bond shall not exceed P20,000 and it is not valid for theft and robbery cases." The portion "Not valid for theft and robbery cases" was deleted with a marking pen but this cancellation was not signed or initialed. Alberto was asked why the cancellation was unsigned. Alberto replied that he had no knowledge on who made the stamp or the cancellation. Issue: WON Javier is liable for violation of Canon 16 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received from a client. The Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Cannon 16- a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his profession Cannon 18.3- a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. •
ALMENDAREZ VS ATTY. LANGIT AC#7057 Facts: On 5 May 2004, David L. Almendarez, Jr. filed complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking the disbarment of Atty. Minervo T. Langit for acts unbecoming a lawyer. Complainant, as attorney-infact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 2 to which Atty. Langit was the plaintiff. Two of the respondents in the ejectment case paid rentals amounting P255, 000.00 was withdrawn by the counsel as confirmed by the officerin-charge Clerk of Court. Respondent did not inform complainant of these transactions. Atty. Langit appropriated the amount to himself because the complainants owe him his attorney’s fees. Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D. Larida, sent respondent on 30 June 2003 a final demand letter for the accounting and return of the P255, 000.00. Respondent failed to reply. Thus, this administrative case. During trial, Atty. Langit refused to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory conference. Although respondent did not appear at the conference, the IBP gave him another chance to defend himself through a position paper. Still, respondent ignored this directive, exhibiting a blatant disrespect for authority. Issue: WON Atty. Langit can unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes •
him attorney’s fees. Held: Upon release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over them in connection with his legal services, provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorney’s fees. In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money. A lawyer’s failure to turn over the money to his client despite the latter’s demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit, a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal profession, and which also renders the lawyer liable for contempt. More specifically, it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for contempt, as stated in Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 25. Unlawful retention of client’s funds; contempt.— When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution. Further, a lawyer must observe and maintain respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities, including the IBP. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court has empowered the IBP to conduct proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys. Whenever a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, this Court has the right and duty to withdraw his privilege as officer of the Court and member of the Bar. Thus, Atty. Minervo T. Langit was suspended from practice of law for two (2) years for violating Canons 1, 11, 16 and 17 of Code of Professional Responsibility. And ordered for Restitution of the money appropriated. •
Canon 17 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.
•
Canon 18 CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. 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.
Somotsot vs Atty. Pontevedra FACTS: •
AC#4285
•
On July 28, 1994, complainant Florencia M. Somosot (now deceased) filed a verified complaint against respondent Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra for neglect of duty and for professional misconduct for unlawfully keeping money belonging to her.
•
Somosot was one of the plaintiffs in a Civil Case, for reconveyance and recovery of possession, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 59, San Carlos City and Pontevedra was her counsel.
•
The case had been pending for 23 years already so the trial court ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
•
Complainant repeatedly reminded respondent about the deadline, but respondent still failed to file a memorandum. Instead, respondent allegedly entered into an oral agreement with the opposing counsel that they would both forego with the filing of the memorandum.
•
After almost two years, complainant’s daughter, Wilma S. Pones, sent respondent a money order for P1,000 as payment for the preparation of the memorandum.
•
Since the period for filing had already lapsed, respondent took no action on complainant’s request.
•
Wilma learned that the case had been submitted for decision without any memoranda. She asked that her money be returned. Respondent ignored her request. Thus, Wilma filed the instant case.
Pontevedra’s argument: That the complainant’s family lawyer, Atty. Raymundo Ponteras, handled the prosecution of the case and the presentation of witnesses. Unfortunately, Atty. Ponteras died and his notes were lost. ISSUE: Whether respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility in failing to file the required •
memorandum in the Civil Case and for keeping the money order despite complainant’s request for its return. RULING: The Commission found respondent liable for breach of his professional duties and recommended that respondent be REPRIMANDED and WARNED. The Commission held that there was no sufficient justification for respondent’s failure to file the memorandum. Regarding the money order, however, the Commission held that complainant’s remedy was not to proceed administratively against respondent, who did not present the money order for payment, but to ask for a refund from the post office concerned. Complainant’s prayer for damages is denied. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. •
Rollan vs Naraval (AC#6424)
C. B. REYESvs. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN A.C. No. 5835 April 15, 2005 Facts: The complaint alleges that sometime in June 2001, complainant Carlos Reyes hired the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan for the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint or charge against his sister-in-law, Estelita Reyes, and the latter's niece, Julieta P. Alegonza; that both women refused to abide with the Decision of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, in Civil Case No. 99-92657 ordering the partition of the properties left by complainant's brother Damaso B. Reyes; and that respondent, after receiving the amount of P17,000.00, did not take any action on complainant's case. On April 18, 2001, IBP Commissioner Navarro submitted to the IBP Board of Governors her Report and Recommendation quoted as follows: "x x x. After going over the evidence on record, the undersigned noted that respondent ignored all the Orders issued by this Commission and neither did he comply with any of those Orders. Respondent even failed to submit the responsive pleadings he himself requested in his motion and only sent his assistant secretary to represent him in the scheduled hearings of this case. Up to and until the present, no pleadings was submitted despite respondent's allegations that he was collating evidence to prove his side of the case”. the complaint submitted by the complainant was only a format in the sense that it was not signed by the respondent; the RTC Branch No. was left blank; there was no Civil Case No. and there was no proof that said pleading was filed which 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 which was paid by the complainant as reflected in the receipts issued by the respondent in handwritten forms and signed by him. Issue: WON there was a violation of canon 18 Held: 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 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 states: "Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. •
•
De Enriquez vs Atty. San Jose (AC#3569)
•
Soriano vs Atty. Reyes (AC#4676)
•
Adecer vs Atty. Akut (AC#4809)
Balatbat vs Arias Sanchez AC# 1666 FACTS: •
•
In the Complaint dated September 8, 1976, Luisito Balat-bat alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Edgardo Arias y Sanchez to undertake his defense in the said civil case.
•
According to complainant, he did not attend the scheduled hearings because respondent told him that there was no need to be present. But when he verified the status of the case from the then City Court of Manila, he was surprised to learn that a Decision dated June 21, 1976 had already been rendered which was adverse to him.
•
Atty. Sanchez alleged that it was Luisito who always cannot attend the scheduled hearings.
There was also a confusion as to the identity of Atty. Edgardo Arias y Sanchez and Atty. Edgardo Sorca Arias living in Palawan. Just added drama because when the notice of the hearing was sent, it was sent to Atty. Sorca in Palawan and not to Atty. Arias in Manila. ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be disbarred or suspended. •
RULING: Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month, and warned that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. The settled rule is that the attorney-client relation continues until the client gives a notice of discharge, or manifests to the court or tribunal where the case is pending that counsel is being discharged, with a copy served upon the adverse party. Thus, the only way to be relieved as counsel is to have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the court relieving him of the duties of counsel, in accordance with Rule 138, Section 2620 of the Rules of Court. Respondent’s actuations likewise violate Rule 18.04, which mandates that a lawyer keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to a client’s request for information. A client must never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general.
•
•
Canon 19 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. Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client 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. Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. Briones v. Jimenez (AC#6691)
Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr. AC# 5655 Jan.23, 2006 Sandoval-Guttierrez, J.: Facts: Dalisay hired the services of Mauricio, Jr. In a Civil Case in MTC. Documents and attorney’s fees amounting to P56,000 were given and paid but the Mauricio never rendered his legal services. Dalisay terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of money and documents but Mauricio refused. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended refunding the legal fees to the complainant but the complaint was dismissed. IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution and approved Commissioner Navarro’s report and recommendation. Upon learning the decision, Maurico went to MTC to verify the status of the case, he learned that that the tax declarations and title were not official records from Municipal Assessor and Registry of Deeds. Mauricio filed a complaint against Dalisay for violation of 171 and 172 and/or 182 of RPC. (Falsification) Hence this motion for reconsideration. Issue: Whether or not Mauricio violated Canon 19? Held: Yes, Canon 19 CPR outlines the procedure in dealing with client who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. Mauricio accused Dalisay of offering falsified evidence in the Civil case which prompted him of filing a complaint and which justifies his inability to render his legal services. However such will not exonerate the respondent. It is mandated that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only within the bounds of law. •
Rule 19.02 —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.
Lawyers are expected to know this rule. He should have confronted his client and asked her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses then he should terminate his relationship with her. Decision: Motion for Reconsideration Denied. Lijauco v. Terrado (same C13 & Q2) A.C. No. 6317, August 31, 2006 Ynares-Santiago, J.: Facts: Luzviminda Lijauco engaged the services of Atty. Rogelio Terrado to assist in recovering her deposit with Palnters Development Bank in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. She gave P70,000.00 as atty’s fees upon securing his service. The property is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the RTC of Binan, with LRC Case No. B2610. Lijauco alleged that Atty. Terrado failed to appear before the trial court during the hearing for the issuance of the writ of possession and did not protect her interests in the Compomise Agreement which she subsequently entered to to end the case for the issuance of the writ. Atty. Terrado denied the accusations stating that the P70,000.00 was payment for his services regarding the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include for the LRC Case No. B-2610. A complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the •
Philippines. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his request finding Atty. Terrado guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Issue: Whether or not Terrado is guilty of violating The Code of Professional Responsibility. Held: Yes. Atty. Terrado was found guilty of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.03 and 20.01 and was suspended from the practice of law for six months. Rule 1.01 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Atty. Terrado is guilty of this because he lead Lijauco to believe that she can still recover her foreclosed property my participating in a compromise agreement. Atty. Terrado is likewise guilty of violating Rule 9.02 which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. For he openly admitted that he divided the P70,000.00 to other individuals as referral fees. Rule 18.03 states that A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Records show that he acted as Lijauco’s counsel in the drafting of the compromise agreement. Thus his act of abandoning his client can made him answerable for such. And lastly, Rule 20 states that a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. The fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit is unreasonable.
•
Canon 20 CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES. Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees: (a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (c) The importance of the subject matter; (d) The skill demanded; (e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service; (h) The contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and (j) The professional standing of the lawyer. Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and responsibility assumed. Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client. Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
•
Cueto vs Jimenez (AC# 5798)
•
Lijauco vs Terrado (same C13 & P3)
•
Roxas et. Al vs De ZuZuarregui Jr. (AC#152072)
•
Canon 21 CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED. Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except; (a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure; (b) When required by law; (c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an
outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose. Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client. Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the clients. Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs even with members of his family. Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest. •
•
•
Yao v. Aurelio (AC#7023) Canon 22 CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following case: (a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; (b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; (c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; (d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; (e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; (f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and (g) Other similar cases. Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter. Francisco et. al v. Portugal (AC#6155)
