CANON 14

BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL

(A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967)

FACTS:
Complainants ask the Court to take disciplinary action against the
respondent for professional non-feasance. It arises when respondent
volunteered to help complainants in their respective pension claims in
connection with the death of their respective husbands. However, they
noticed that respondent had lost interest in the progress of their claims and
refused to surrender the pertinent documents when asked to.

Respondent admitted having received the documents from

complainants, but explained that it was for photostating purposes only.
According to him, his failure to immediately return the said documents was
due to complainants’ refusal to hand him the money to pay for the
photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing said documents
from the Photostat service.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
xxx A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy. xxx The evidence is
insufficient to warrant the taking of the disciplinary action against the
respondent. As a man of law, respondent’s conduct must, perforce, be par
excellence, especially so when he volunteers his professional services. Yet,
respondent was not able to comply with that standard. It was unnecessary
to have complainants wait and hope for six long years on their pension
claims. Upon refusal to cooperate, respondent should have terminated their
professional relationship instead of hanging indefinitely. Thus, Atty.
Arcangel is reminded of what the high standards of his chosen profession
require of him.
 CANON 14

SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. ATTY. FOJAS

(A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995)

FACTS:
On September 8, 1993, the complainants, former clients of the
respondent, pray that the latter be disbarred for malpractice, neglect and
other offenses which may be discovered during the actual investigation of
this complaint. The complainant further asserts that they were not able to
receive a positive judgment because of the respondent’s negligence.
However, the respondent claims that even though he made a mistake, it was
cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration which was unfortunately
denied by the court. He further claims that the complainants filed this case
to harass him because he refused to share his attorney’s fees in the main labor
case he had handled for them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent committed culpable negligence, as
would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the complainants

HELD:
Yes. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employment subject to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy. xxx The respondent admits that it was his duty to file an answer
and that he failed to do so. His lack of diligence was compounded by his
erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or grave abuse of
discretion and by his continued refusal to file an answer even after he
received the Court of Appeals' decision in the certiorari case. Thus, the
Supreme Court decided that respondent should be reprimanded.
 CANON 14

RAMOS v. ATTY. DAJOYAG, JR.

(A.C. No. 5174, February 28, 2002)

FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Ernesto M. Ramos against Atty. Mariano
A. Dajoyag, Jr. for negligence in failing to appeal a ruling of the National
Labor Relations Commission,[1] which affirmed the dismissal by the Labor
Arbiter of a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by complainant against
DCCD Engineering Corporation. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice,
dated November 15, 1999

This fact arose out of case G.R. 125244 (Ernesto Ramos vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, DCCD Engineering Corp., et al.) Our motion
for last extension of time within which to file [a] petition for review on
certiorari [was] DENIED, petitioner having been previously warned in the
resolution of July 24, 1996 that no further extension will be given per
resolution of the First Division of [the] Honorable Court dated August 26,
1996. Our petition for certiorari filed on August 14, 1996 was dismissed per
resolution of the First Division of [the] Honorable Court dated December 2,
1996 for having [been] filed out of time. Our motion for reconsideration [of]
the resolution [dated] December 2, 1996, which dismissed the petition for
certiorari, was likewise denied with finality per resolution dated February
19, 1997 of the First Division of [the] Honorable Court.

Because it was not my fault or shortcoming but that of my lawyer,

Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr., for his failure [in] his devotion to his client,
warmth and zeal in the defense of his clients rights, it is requested that said
erring lawyer be duly sanctioned and my petition for certiorari be
reconsidered and accepted. Or through another counsel, I be allowed to file
another petition for certiorari with [an] important addendum, which my said
former lawyer failed to mention due to time constraint in filing [the] petition
for certiorari.[2]

Respondent denied the allegations against him. Commenting on the

complaint
 It appears that the Resolution granting my request for 1st extension
contained a warning that no further extension would be given. BUT I WAS
NOT AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I FILED MY MOTION FOR LAST
EXTENSION FOR ONLY 20 DAYS, I HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THE
COPY OF SAID RESOLUTION. And in fact, even at the time I filed the basic
Petition for Certiorari, I HAVE NOT YET STILL received said July 24, 1996
Resolution.

I RELIED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN THE HONEST BELIEF THAT

THE FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS WOULD BE
GRANTED - WITHOUT THE WARNING - SINCE IT WAS MERELY A
FIRST EXTENSION. Then even as I was terribly saddled with heavy load
and at times had some difficulty in getting in touch with complainant, I
dropped everything to be able to beat the supposed deadline of August 14th,
1996.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation canon 14.04 of the code of
prefessional.

HELD:
First. Respondent pleads good faith and excusable neglect of duty. He
stresses the fact that he filed the petition for certiorari within the 20-day
period of extension that he sought in his second motion for extension and
claims that he learned that the period of extension granted in his first motion
for extension was inextendible only after the expiration of the two periods
of extension that he prayed for.

Regardless of the agreement he had with complainant with respect to the

payment of his fees, respondent owed it to complainant to do his utmost to
ensure that every remedy allowed by law is availed of.[7] Rule 14.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins every lawyer to devote his full
attention, diligence, skills, and competence to every case that he
accepts. Pressure and large volume of legal work do not excuse respondent
for filing the petition for certiorari out of time.[8]
 Second. Complainant prays that we admit and consider the merits of the
petition for certiorari filed by respondent, or that he be allowed to file anew
a separate petition for certiorari. We understand the plight of the
complainant, but we cannot grant his plea. This is an administrative case,
separate from G.R. No. 125244 in which the dismissal of the petition
for certiorari was made. The resolution of the Court in that case operated as
a judgment on the merits and is now final.[10] Indeed, public policy and
sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments
of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law,[11] and that
every party be bound by his counsels decision regarding the conduct of the
case, including his mistakes, save only when the negligence of counsel is so
gross, reckless, and inexcusable as to amount to a deprivation of the clients
day in court.[12] This is not the situation in this case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano A. Dajoyag, Jr. is REPRIMANDED. He is

admonished henceforth to exercise greater care and diligence in the
performance of his duties towards his clients and the courts and warned that
repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with.
 CANON 14

ABAQUETA v. ATTY. FLORIDO

(A.C. No. 5948, January 22, 2003)

FACTS:
The complainant, Gamaliel Abaqueta filed this administration
complaint against respondent Atty. Florido for conflict of interest. Abaqueta
engaged the professional services of Atty. Florido in a special proceeding
entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta Susana
Uy Trazo(1st Case).Atty. Florido was able to file Objections and Comments to
Inventory and Accounting, registering complainants objection.

Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of
money against complainant Abaqueta in a case entitled, Milagros Yap
Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona (2nd Case). Respondent
Atty. Florido signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap-
Abaqueta, averring, inter alia, that Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel
Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of those certain parcels of land. However,
the parcel of land referred to as conjugal party of the complainant and
Milagro Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcel of land in the 1st Case. In
short, respondent lawyer made allegations in the 2nd Case, which were
contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for
complainant in the 1st case. Complainant also avered that respondent Atty.
Florido admitted that he was never authorized to appear as counsel for
Milagro Yap-Abaqueta in the 2nd case, and that Atty. Florido failed to
indicate n the Complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant,
which Atty. Florido knew as far back as August 2, 1990.

In Atty. Florido's defense, he always acted in good faith in his

professional relationship with complainant in spite of the fact that they have
not personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the Complaint on
information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, indicating
that he was sole and exclusive owner of the properties. Eight years later, long
after the 1st case was settled, and the attorney-client relationship between
complainant and respondent lawyer was terminated, Mrs. Milagros
Abaqueta through Mrs. Baclig, engaged his services to file the 2nd case. Mrs.
Baclig presented to him a deed of absolute sale dated July 7, 1975, showing
that the properties subject hereof were not complainants exclusive property
but his conjugal property with his wife, the same having been acquired
during the subsistence of their marriage. Thus, in all good faith, respondent
alleged in the complaint that said properties were conjugal assets of the
spouses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Florido violated Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by representing Milagros Yap.

HELD:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or
advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline such employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. A lawyer may not, without being
guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his former client. The reason for the prohibition is
found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. Indeed, as we stated
in Sibulo v. Cabrera, "The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so
that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be
avoided."

Credence cannot, however, be given to the charge that respondent

fraudulently and maliciously falsified the true and correct address of the
complainant notwithstanding respondent's knowledge thereof.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for Three (3) months.
 CANON 14

GONE VS. GA
(A.C. 7771, April 6, 2011)

FACTS:
This case stemmed from the complaint for disciplinary action dated 23
October 1989 filed by Patricio Gone against Atty. Macario Ga before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint was due to Atty. Ga's failure to reconstitute or turn over the
records of the case in his possession. Complainant Gone reported that Atty.
Ga is his counsel in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-2Q281-78 entitled "Patricio Gone
v. Solid Mills, Inc." The case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and was
elevated to the Notional Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Complainant allged that when the records of his appealed case was
destroyed, the respondent did not do anything to reconstitute any record
about the case. Complainant even asked the respondent to return the records
of the cases the respondent atty. was in possession of but continuously
refused the request of the complainant causing the latter injustice to his
family.

On February 16, 1999 the IBP commissioner issued an order directing

the respondent to file his answer on the complainant.

Respondent answered that when the records was destroyed, he was

relieved to have received summons from the NLRC however the
complainant did not appear on the two scheduled hearings set by the NLRC
so the case was shelved.

Two hearing s were set by the IBP commissioner wherein the

complainant was present and the respondent was absent so there was no
choice but to reset the hearing. On November 10, 2000 the complainant was
the absentee this time around. The respondent prayed for time to file a
motion for Dismiss
 The IBP censured Ga for violating rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the code
of professional responsibility. The IBP was further directed to confirm if
respondent has complied with Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94 dated 19
September 2007 directing him to reconstitute and turn over the records of
the case to complainant. No motion for reconsideration was filed by any of
the parties.

Thus, on 2 September 2009, the Court issued a resolution requiring

Atty. Ga to explain his failure to comply with IBP Resolution No. XVIII-2007-
94. Record of the instant case reveals that the resolution dated 2 September
2009 was received by Atty. Ga on 15 October 2009. To date, Atty. Ga has yet
to comply with the resolution.

ISSUE:
Is there anyway that the respondent violated Canon 14?

HELD:
No. However it was discussed in the case that an Attorney, if he cannot
handle the case should refuse to accept the case according to the rules in
canon 14. In the case however the respondent accepted it but failed to
perform the necessary efforts to fulfill his duties with his clients. It said that
a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to
become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject however,
to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once
he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him.

The court agrees with the IBP finding the respondent guilty of
violating Canon 18 rule 18.03
 CANON 14

CATALAN VS. SILVOSA

(A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012)

FACTS:
This is a complaint filed by Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr against Atty.
Joselito M. Silvosa. Atty. Catalan has three causes of action against Atty.
Silvosa.

In his first cause of action, Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of

appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously appeared as
public prosecutor, hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty.
Silvosa and the accused are relatives and have the same middle name, Atty.
Silvosa displayed manifest bias in the accused's favor. Atty. Silvosa caused
numerous delays in the trial of the Esperon case by arguing against the
position of the private prosecutor.

In his second cause of action, Atty. Catalan presented the affidavit of

Pros. Toribio. In a case for frustrated murder where Atty. Catalan's brother
was a respondent, Pros. Toribio reviewed the findings of the investigating
judge and downgraded the offense from frustrated murder to less serious
physical injuries. During the hearing before Comm. Funa, Pros. Toribio
testified that, while still a public prosecutor at the time, Atty. Silvosa offered
her P30,000 to reconsider her findings and uphold the charge of frustrated
murder.

Atty. Catalan relies on Rule 6.03 which states that "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." Atty. Silvosa, on the hand, relies on Rule 2.01 which provides that
"A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed" and on Canon 14 which provides that "A
lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defense of respondent involving Canon 14 is
applicable.

HELD:
No it is not applicable. Yes the canon 14 states that an attorney must
not refuse except for valid reasons a case to defend the defenseless however
atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that "A lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.

Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Hilado vs. David:

An attorney is employed that is, he is engaged in his professional
capacity as a lawyer or counselor when he is listening to his client's
preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just
as truly as when he is drawing his client's pleadings, or advocating his
client's pleadings, or advocating his client's cause in open court.

The bare relationship between a client and an attorney may cause an

incompatibility of interests. That is why it is not allowed. The reason for this
rule is to prevent any dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct. Also
it protects honest attorneys from suspicions of unprofessional practice. This
prohibition applies to Silvosa even if the attorney has honest intetions and
acted in good faith.

Respondent was suspended for representing conflicting interests and

due to his bribery of Prosecutor Toribio. However he was disbarred for his
conviction of the crime of direct bribery under Section 27 of rule 28
 CANON 14

FRANCISCO, TAN AND JOAQUIN V. PORTUGAL

(A.C. No. 6155)

FACTS:
Complainants, police officers SPO3 Francisco, SPO3 Tan, and PO3
Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident and were later found guilty of
two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide. They then
sought the legal services of Atty. Jaime Portugal. After filing an Urgent
Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, Portugal did
not contact his clients again. In an attempt to contact him, they went to his
house but found out that Portugal moved out of his former address. The
aforementioned motion he filed was also denied for late filing and non-
payment of docket fees and consequently warrants of arrest were issued
against the three policemen.

On August 2003 they filed a complaint against Portugal for violation

of the Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence. Only PO3
Joaquin appeared in the conciliation conference. Respondent presented the
following arguments: he was not the original counsel of the three, there was
no formal engagement undertaken between the parties, and that he filed the
motion on time. Furthermore, he also requested to be discharged from the
case but was denied by Joaquin.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Portugal violated Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Rule 14.01 of the Code states that “A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status
of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.”

The defense counsel branded his own clients as being the culprits that
salvaged the victims. He described them as “the accused police officers who
had been convicted of homicide for the salvage of Frolan Cabiling and Jose
Chua and attempted homicide of Mario Macato.“
Regarding the contentions of the respondent, the IBP found them to be
devoid of merit. There was indeed a failure to submit the motion on time.
And regardless of his opinions toward his clients, it was his obligation as a
lawyer to handle the said case with the same degree and fervor he renders
to his other cases since he agreed to take up the cause of his clients. Had he
wanted to withdraw from the case, he should have filed the notice of
withdrawal himself.

He was suspended from the practice of law for three months.

 CANON 14

VOLUNTAD RAMIREZ VS. BAUTISTA

FACTS:
In her Affidavit-Complaint dated 29 March 2005, complainant alleged
that on 25 November 2002, she engaged the legal services of respondent to
file a complaint against complainant's siblings for encroachment of her right
of way. For his legal services, respondent demanded P15,000 as acceptance
fee, plus P1,000 per court appearance. Complainant then paid respondent
the P15,000 acceptance fee. On 29 May 2003, or six months after she hired
respondent, complainant severed the legal services of respondent because
respondent failed to file a complaint within a reasonable period of time as
requested by complainant. Complainant then retrieved from respondent the
folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case which
complainant had entrusted to respondent. Complainant claimed that she
was dissatisfied with the way respondent handled her complaint
considering that during the six months that elapsed, respondent only sent a
letter to the City Engineer's Office in Navotas City concerning her complaint.
On 8 March 2004, complainant sent a letter to respondent, reiterating that
she was terminating the services of respondent and that she was asking for
the refund of P14,000 out of the P15,000 acceptance fee. Complainant stated
in her letter that due to respondent's "failure to institute the desired
complaint on time" against complainant's brothers and sisters, complainant
was compelled to hire the services of another counsel to file the complaint.
Respondent failed to refund the P14,000, prompting complainant to file on
10 May 2005 her complaint dated 29 March 2005 with the Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court. Complainant charged respondent with
violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, violation of the lawyer's oath, grave misconduct, and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of negligence in handling the case
of complainant?
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that respondent is guilty of negligence in
handling the case of complainant. The Court also agreed with the finding of
the Investigating Commissioner that respondent breached his duty to serve
his client with competence and diligence. Respondent is also guilty of
violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states
that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." However, we do
not find respondent guilty of violating Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility since respondent immediately turned over to complainant
the folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case upon
the severance of respondent's legal services.

Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is
expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's
cause with diligence, care and devotion. As held in Santiago v. Fojas:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser
or advocate for every person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment, subject,
however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of [his]
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion
the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
Elsewise stated, he owes entire 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 and ability to the
end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of the law, legally applied. This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties
not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the
 public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain
the respect of the community to the legal profession.

In this case, respondent attributes his delay in filing the appropriate

criminal case to the absence of conciliation proceedings between
complainant and her siblings before the barangay as required under Article
222 of the Civil Code and the Local Government Code. However, this excuse
is belied by the Certification to File Action by the Office of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay Council, Barangay Daanghari,
Navotas. The Certification to File Action was issued on 1 July 2002, which
was more than four months before complainant engaged respondent's legal
services on 25 November 2002. Respondent's allegation that complainant
failed to inform him about the existence of the Certification to File Action is
hard to believe considering complainant's determination to file the case
against her siblings. Clearly, respondent has been negligent in handling
complainant's case.
 CANON 14

ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF PAN-

ASIA INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES, INC. VS. ATTY. ROSENDO
MENESES III

FACTS:
The respondent, Atty. Rosendo Meneses III, was a legal officer of
Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc., (Frankwell) which engaged
his services to a criminal case in accordance to his retainer. He was tasked to
counsel Arthur Bretaña, one of the accused in said case. Respondent received
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50, 000.00) from Bretaña to be given to a certain
Gleason as consideration for an out-of-court settlement, and with the
understanding that a motion to dismiss the case would be filed by
respondent. Atty. Augusto G. Navarro, for and in behalf of Pan-Asia
International Commodities, Inc., Complainant, which is under Frankwell,
filed an Administrative case against Respondent, before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the IBP (Commission) due to his
continued failure to account for the amount of P50, 000.00. Respondent
contends that Bretaña was not an employee of Frankwell, which retained
him as its legal counsel; and that the settlement of said case cannot be
concluded because the same was archived and the accused Bretaña is
presently out of the country.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is required to inform the complainant and
Consequently, Frankwell regarding the P50, 000.00 and the Case
development.

HELD:
Yes. It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline
employment subject, however, to the provisions of Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client,
he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the
obligation to inform his client of the status of the case and to respond within
a reasonable time to his client's request for information. Respondent's failure
to communicate with his client by deliberately disregarding its requests for
an audience or conference is an unjustiable denial of its right to be fully
informed of the developments in and the status of its case.
 CANON 14

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO VS ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA

(A.C. 6708/CBD Case No. 01-874, August 25, 2005)

FACTS:
Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao filed and administrative case for
disbarment against, Respondent, Atty. Nestor A. Bamba due to conflicting
interests when the latter filed a case against her while representing her in
another case, and for committing other acts of disloyalty and double-
dealing. Complainant was president and managing director of Allied
Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB) June 2000 to January 2001 and hired
Respondent for Legal Services for the Corporate Affairs of AIB and for a
personal case regarding ejectment. Complainant claims that Respondent
proposed to her that she organize her own security agency and that he
would assist her in its organization. Complainant then resigned as president
of AIB and organized Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc.
(QRMSI), in which respondent is a "silent partner" represented by Atty.
Gerardo P. Hernandez. Respondent denies the allegation that he is a "silent
partner" of QRMSI. Although respondent does admit that he represented the
complainant in the aforementioned ejectment case and represented AIB in
the replevin case against complainant. Respondent avers that he was led to
believe that his duties in Legal Services of AIB involved personal cases of its
officers. Respondent asserts that the complainant expressly consented to his
continued representation in the ejectment case thus causing the Conflict of
Interest that he is being charged with.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was duty-bound to act as counsel to both
AIB and Complainant despite the evident conflict of interest.

HELD:
No. Although Respondent is bound by the Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, they have the right to decline such employment.
Although there are instances where lawyers cannot decline representation,
they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present
client and a prospective one. Respondent is found guilty of violating Rule
15.03 of Canon 15.
CANON 15

HORNILLA & ATTY. RICAFORT v. ATTY. SALUNAT

(A.C. No. 5804, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainants filed an administrative complaint, alleging that
respondent is a member of ASSA Law and Associates and retained counsel
of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA), with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline,
against respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice
and conflict of interest.

Respondent was the counsel for the PPSTA Board Members in an

intra-corporate case was filed against the members of the Board of Directors
for the terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 and a complaint for unlawful
spending and the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA by the
Complainants who are members of the PPSTA. He refused to withdraw his
appearance even if the complainants argued that he was guilty of conflict of
interest for he was engaged by the PPSTA and was paid out of its corporate
funds. Respondent, as Managing Partner of the ASSA Law and Associates,
claimed that his appearance was in behalf of the law firm; he only filed a
“Manifestation of Extreme Urgency" and that it was complainant Atty.
Ricafort who filed the said case against the members of the PPSTA and its
Board.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts. xxx Conflicting interest arise when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties, i.e. when a lawyer engaged as
counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same
corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them.

In the case at bar, based on the records, the respondent violated Rule
15.02 when he appeared as counsel for the parties against the PPSTA filed
suit. He filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency and by filing the said
pleading constituted conflict of interest, even though the complaint was in
behalf of and to protect the interest of the corporation in the name of the
individual members of the PPSTA. Thus, the Supreme Court held that
respondent was guilty of conflict of interest and admonished the respondent
to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.
 CANON 15

CASTRO-JUSTO v. ATTY. GALING

(A.C. No. 6174, November 16, 2011)

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of the respondent
in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor
Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the
respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the
checks. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period
indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.

The complainant received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed

by respondent for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal
cases, and the latter's daughter Karen Torralba. Further, respondent
appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent alleged that complainants are long time friends. Also, that
the filing of the Motion for Consolidation which is a non-adversarial
pleading does not evidence the existence of lawyer-client relationship. He
insisted that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the
parties achieve an out of court settlement and possible reconciliation.

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found

respondent guilty of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts. xxx Applying this in the case, respondent was not
able to show any proof that he had obtained the written consent of the
conflicting parties. Further, the take-over of a client's cause of action by
another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the
opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of
the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship. Thus, the
respondent should be sanctioned.
 CANON 15

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC. v.

ATTY. FUNK
(A.C. No. 9094, August 15, 2012)

FACTS:
The case is a disbarment case against a lawyer who sued a former client
in representation of a new one. Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Funk and alleged that respondent used to work
as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the
foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in several
criminal and civil cases. Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action
for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat
institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.

As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat

Institute by Don Teodoro Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal
counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorney-client relationship
was always between Santos and him. He was more of Santos’ personal
lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.

Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty.
Funk agreed that the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the
properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. Atty.
Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up
with it Santos’ sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to
Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property
transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that Santos provided. It
was Santos’ intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat Institute free
of rent and expenses. According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the
complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion that the foundation
followed. After Santos died, respondent was elected President of Mabalacat
Institute.

The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funk’s fees, thus he severed
his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The
trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the respondent. After hearing, the
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a
pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his
former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended Atty.
Funk’s suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved
for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a
former client in violation of the CPR when he filed several actions against
such client on behalf of a new one.

HELD:
YES. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty.
Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after
terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint
against it on behalf of another client without the foundation’s written
consent.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the

highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates
that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging
inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge
of his former client’s doings, whether documented or not, that he would
ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his
client placed on him in the light of their relationship.

Respondent collected attorney’s fees from the foundation. Thus, he

had an obligation not to use any knowledge he acquired during that
relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation existed at
all, when he sued the foundation.
 WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of
the IBP SUSPENDS Atty. Richard Funk from the practice of law for one
year effective immediately.
 CANON 15

MARCELO v. JAVIER, SR.

(A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992)

FACTS:
In a verified letter-complaint 1 dated May 19, 1988, complainant
Domingo R. Marcelo charges respondent Atty. Adriano S. Javier, Sr. with
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a transaction over
complainant's residential lot as security for a loan.

On November 13, 1984 Domingo Marcelo, complainant, mortgaged his

unregistered land consisting of 1,045 square meters located at Cambaog,
Bustos, Bulacan to mortgagee Sy Hun Tek as security for a loan in the alleged
amount of P80,000.00 payable on November 15, 1985 with legal interest, with
the deed of mortgage having been prepared and notarized by respondent as
the family lawyer of the mortgagee. Of the alleged amount of the loan,
complainant only received P50,000.00 from which was deducted P2,500.00
as installment or the loan for the month of December, 1984, and a further
amount of P5,000.00 was taken by respondent for the titling of said property
under Act. No. 496. In effect, complainant only received the actual amount
of P42,500.00. As of the filling of the instant administrative case, respondent
had not yet caused the mortgaged property to be duly titled. Complainant
was not given a copy of the mortgage deed, much less the chance to read the
same, and he learned of the contents of said deed only when he secured a
certified true xerox copy thereof from the Records Management and
Archives Office in Manila.

A few weeks thereafter, complainant learned that the mortgaged

property had been foreclosed and sold to one Enrico Perez, a resident of the
place where the land is situated. There was no public auctionnor the posting
of appropriate notices thereof as prescribed by law. Moreover, the sale of the
mortgaged property by Sy Hun Tek to Perez was within the redemption
period.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Yes. The facts such as the respondent’s inability to apprise the
complainant in full the total amount stated in the deed of real estate
mortgage as his obligation thereunder, as well as of the terms and conditions
stipulated therein and his incapacity to deal directly with the complainant
regarding the obtention and preparation of the loan constitutes respondent’s
failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures
of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons
of Professional Ethics, thereby occasioning unwarranted inconvenience and
hardship on complainant.

While complainant should have been more discerning and less gullible
in his business dealings, nonetheless respondent lawyer should likewise
have been conscientious in seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of
a transaction for which his services have been engaged, in conformity with
the avowed duties of a worthy member of the Bar. If respondent was indeed
the reasonably prudent and respectable attorney that he represents himself
to be, instead of taking undue advantage of the naivete and lack of education
of complainant, he should have fully explained the legal intricacies and
consequences of the subject transaction as would aid the parties in making
an informed decision. Such responsibility was plainly incumbent upon him;
failing therein, and with his advanced age duly considered, he must now
face the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion, albeit
apparently his first.cd

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ORDERS the suspension of Atty.

Adriano S. Javier, Sr. from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be
spread on the records of said respondent, with copies thereof furnished to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts. SO
ORDERED.
 CANON 15

RCBI BOHOL VS. FLORIDO

(A.C. 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 (respondent) for "acts constituting
grave coercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders
of RBCI, led his clients in physically taking over the management and
operation of the bank through force, violence and intimidation."|||

In his comment, respondent denied RBCI's allegations. Respondent

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. He said that
they went to Garay to ask him to step down but Garay reacted violently. S

The IBP ruled that respondent failed to live up to the exacting

standards expected of him as a lawyer. There is no legal basis on taking
over the management premises of RCBI without a valid court order.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent attorney violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

RULINGHELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Canons 1,15 and 19 of the code. The first
and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the
land. Likewise, 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.

The Supreme Court agreed to the report of IBP that there is no legal
basis over of the management of RCBI and that the respondent attorney
should have known that what his client was against the law and should have
stopped them for his duty is not to his client but with the administration of
the law.
 CANON 15

HEIRS OF BALLESTEROS SR. VS. APIAG

(A.C. 5760, September 30, 2005)

FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Julian B. Ballesteros as
Administrator of the Ballesteros Estate and President and Manager of the
Rural Bank of Pagadian, Inc. against Atty. Manileño N. Apiag the retained
counsel of the Ballesteros Estate and the Bank.

Complainant alleged that respondent violated the terms of the Legal

Services Retainership Agreement and Canons 15, 17, 18, 19 and Rules 18.03
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant charges respondent for reneging on his obligations as

retained counsel in the following instances

In civil case 1645-1648 Respondent filed the ejectment cases on 26

November 1998, which were raffled to Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Pagadian City, presided by Judge Absin. In all these cases, parties
were required to submit their position papers. Respondent failed to submit
the position papers. On 8 December 1999, Judge Absin issued four identical
Orders dismissing the ejectment cases. Complainant claims that respondent
never informed him of the dismissal of the ejectment cases.

Respondent’s answer to this is that he submitted those position papers

to the complainant however the complainant did not return the drafts
despite several reminders.

In civil case 3395, where in it involved an Action for Reconveyance of

Real Property, Complainant asserts that the failure to move for
reconsideration would enable the defendants to sell the property

Respondent also did not attend to the pre-trial conference in Civil Case
No. 3844 wherein the complainant was present
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon 15.

HELD:
No. The respondent did not violate Canon 15 for he has done nothing
outside the law. The respondent did not act unfairly nor did he induce any
unlawful act to the complainant. The respondent abided by the law.
However due to his lack of competency and his irresponsibility to his client,
he violated canon 18 and 19.

The Code mandates that every "lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence." The Code further states that "a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable." The Code provides that "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." Furthermore, "a
lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the

The respondent failed to file position papers and did not inform his
clients. As well as failed to file pre trial brief and failed to attend pre trial
conference and failed to file a motion for reconsideration in the
reconveyance of the real property case thus making him incompetent and
not mindful of his clients interests.
 CANON 15

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO VS. ATTY. CARLOS SAGUCIO

(A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006)

FACTS:
Ruthie-Lim Santiago, daughter of Alfonso Lim who is a stockholder
and former President of Taggat Industries, Inc., filed a complaint against
Atty. Carlos Sagucio for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against private practice of law
while working as government prosecutor. Atty. Sagucio was alleged to be
guilty of representing conflicting interests when he was the former
Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat. He should have
inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by
Taggat employees. He even harassed and threatened Taggat employees to
accede and sign an affidavit to support the claim.

He was also alleged to be guilty of engaging in the private practice of

law when the complainant presented evidence proving that respondent
received the amount of P10,000 pesos as retainer's fee for the months of
January and February 1995, another P10,000 pesos for the months of April
and May 1995 and P5,000 for the month of April 1996.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Carlos Sagucio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibilty.

HELD:
No, the Supreme Court exonerated respondent from the charge of
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The Court found no
conflict of interests when respondent handled the preliminary investigation
pertaining a complaint filed by the Taggat employees regarding the non-
payment of wages which occurred from April 1996 to July 15 1997 .
Complainant failed to present a single evidence to prove her allegations. The
fact that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and Retained
Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government prosecutor was
labor-related is not sufficient basis to charge him for representing conflicting
interests.

Respondent was only found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1

of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the
practice of law for six months.
 CANON 15

GONZALES V. CABUCANA
(A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006)

FACTS:
Before this Court is a complaint filed by Leticia Gonzales (Gonzales)
praying that Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, (respondent) be disbarred for
representing conflicting interests.

On January 8, 2004, Gonzales filed a petition before the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that: she was the complainant in a case for
sum of money and damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC) of Santiago City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1-567 where she was
represented by the law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN
AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling
the case and herein respondent as an associate/partner; on February 26,
2001, a decision was rendered in the civil case ordering the losing party to
pay Gonzales the amount of P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as
attorney's fees; Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to fully implement the writ of
execution issued in connection with the judgment which
prompted Gonzales to file a complaint against the said sheriff with this
Court; in September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house
of Gonzales; they harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance regarding her complaint before this Court; Gonzales thereafter
filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave
oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust vexation; notwithstanding the
pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where respondent's law firm was still
representing Gonzales, herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the
cases filed by Gonzales against the said spouses; respondent should be
disbarred from the practice of law since respondent's acceptance of the cases
of the Gatchecos violates the lawyer-client relationship between
complainant and respondent's law firm and renders respondent liable under
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) particularly Rules
10.01, 13.01, 15.02, 15.03, 21.01 and 21.02.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
We find respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It is well-settled that a lawyer is barred
from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is
founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the
lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but
also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
of paramount importance in the administration of justice. One of the tests of
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance of that duty. As we expounded in the recent case of
Quiambao vs. Bamba, The proscription against representation of conflicting
interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients
in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the
lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the
lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion
to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of
the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the
opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present
clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with
each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity
to both clients.
 CANON 15

ERLINDA ABRAGAN, ET.AL VS ATTY. MAXIMO RODRIGUEZ

(A.C. 4346, April 3, 2002)

FACTS:
In 1986, complainants hired the services of the respondent to represent
them in Civil Case No. 11204 for Forcible Entry. The case was won by the
complainants. Subsequently, when the lawyer allegedly surreptitiously
dealt with the subject property with other persons, the petitioner severed the
lawyer–client relationship. On August 1991, complainants filed a case of
indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al. Respondent
represented the sheriff. The counsel employed by the complainants was a
former student of respondent, and said counsel, was advised by respondent,
and withdrew from the case without the complainant’s consent. The
complainants' allegations against the respondent, who, after representing
them initially, then transferring allegiance and services to the adverse parties
(Lonchion, Palacio and NHA Manager), came back to represent them
without any regard for the rules of law and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, which is highly contemptible and a clear violation of his oath as a
lawyer and an officer of the courts of law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Violated Rule 15.03.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after full disclosure of the facts.” Petitioners were the same
complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the Complaint for forcible
entry in Civil Case No. 11204. Respondent should have evaluated the
situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect
contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients,
and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with
the latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times.
 CANON 15

ROMEO H. SIBULO V ATTY. STANLEY R. CABRERA

(A.C. 4218, July 20, 2000)

FACTS:
In the Civil Case No. 90-55209, the defendant in the said case retained
the services of respondent, Atty. Stanley R. Cabrera. However, respondent
also appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Romeo Sibulo, the complainant,
brought the complaint forward. Respondent stated that he "merely accepted
a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as
intervenor of one of the defendants."

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent's appearance as counsel for both is a
violation of Canon 15

HELD:
Yes. Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of,
when he stated in his Answer that he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff
and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the
defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he
(respondent) represented two conflicting interests, which representations or
appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:

"CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS,

AND LOYALTY
IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx xxx xxx
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."
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of
subject civil case. When he agreed to represent the defendant and later on,
also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no longer serve either of his said
clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with his
duty to the defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust,
so that double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be
avoided.
 CANON 16

TAROG v. ATTY. RICAFORT

(A.C. No. 8253, March 15, 2011)

FACTS:
In 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Miralles regarding their
bank-foreclosed property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Miralles advised
them to engage a Bicol-based attorney for that purpose and they went to see
Atty. Ricafort accompanied by Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a brother
of Atty. Miralles.They ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on
account of his being well-known in the community. Having willingly
accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00
as filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained the importance of
depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by
Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. The Tarogs and Vidal
went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00. When Arnulfo
said that he had first to encash the check at the bank, Atty. Ricafort
persuaded him to entrust the check to him instead so that he (Atty. Ricafort)
would be the one to encash it and then deposit the amount in court. On that
representation, Arnulfo handed the check to Atty. Ricafort. After some time,
the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the consignation. Atty.
Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but
in his own account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite
several inquiries about when the amount would be returned, however, the
Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in
good hands. In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was
intended to be deposited in court, insisting that the amount was payment for
his legal services under a "package deal,". Commissioner Reyes concluded
Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the
vulnerability of his clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them
by refusing to return the amount of P65,000.00 to them which the IBP
Governor approved of.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ricaforts acts and actuations constituted breach
of his fiducirary duties as an attorney.

HELD:
Yes, Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any
money and property of his clients that came into his possession, and he
needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed
in him. Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his
professional employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds to his
clients (a) when they became due, or (b) upon demand. Atty. Ricafort’s plain
abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable for
violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01, supra, and Canon 17, all of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts and actuations constituted a
gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics that impaired
public confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.
 CANON 16

ALMENDAREZ, JR. v. ATTY. LANGIT

(A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006)

FACTS:
Complainant, as attorney-in-fact of his mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de
Almendarez, was the plaintiff in an ejectment case. Respondent served as
complainant’s counsel. While the case was pending, defendant Roger
Bumanlag deposited monthly rentals for the property in dispute to the
Branch Clerk of Court. The trial court rendered a decision in the ejectment
case and issued an alias writ of execution for the satisfaction of the decision.

The complainant learned that respondent was able to withdraw the

rentals deposited by Bumanlag. Respondent received a total of Php 255,000,
as evidenced by two receipts signed by him. The withdrawals were made
through Daroy’s authorized representative Antonia Macaraeg, but Daroy
personally delivered the money to respondent. Respondent did not inform
complainant of these transactions. Hence, complainant filed this case for
disbarment against respondent for failing to account for complainant’s
funds.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Langit failed to account for money he held in
trust for complainant

HELD:
Yes. The Court sustains the IBP findings that respondent failed to
account for money he held in trust for complainant, The Report considered
complainant’s evidence clear and convincing enough to justify the
disciplinary action against respondent for violation of Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides xxx A lawyer shall hold in trust
all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. xxx

The respondent received the sum of money representing the monthly

rentals intended for his client. As stated in Rule 16.01 xxx A lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. xxx In
the case at bar, the respondent received the money in his capacity as a
counsel for complainant, thus, the former held the money in trust for
complainant. Yet, respondent received the money without accounting for
and returning such sum to its rightful owner. He should have immediately
notified complainant of the trial court’s approval of the motion to withdraw
the deposited rentals.

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. Rule
16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that xxx 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.
xxx Applying this in the case, respondent did not even seek to prove the
existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money.
Respondent’s failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the
latter’s demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the
money for his personal use and benefit. Thus, this is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public
confidence in legal profession.
 CANON 16

LICUANAN v. ATTY. MELO

(A.C. No. 2361, February 9, 1989)

FACTS:
On 1979, Licuanan won a case against her tenant Aida Pineda whereby
Pineda was ordered to pay the rents due to Licuanan. Pineda complied and
she started paying the rents to Licuanan’s lawyer, Atty. Manuel Melo. So for
12 months, Melo received the rental payments but he did not turn over the
said payments to Licuanan. Licuanan did inquire about said payment but
Melo withheld information about the fact that Pineda was actually paying.
As a consequence, Licuanan filed a case against Pineda. Pineda in turn filed
a damage suit against Licuanan as she claims that the case filed by Licuanan
against her is groundless – as she was in fact paying her rents.

Eventually, Licuanan find out that Melo failed to deliver to her the
rents. Licuanan then filed an affidavit complaint against Melo. Melo in his
defense said that he withheld information about the rent payments for a year
because he merely wanted to surprise Licuanan about the success of the
collections. The Solicitor General subsequently recommended the
suspension of Melo for not less than one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Melo should be suspended.

HELD:
No. As ruled by the Supreme Court, he should be disbarred. Melo’s
retaining of Licuanan’s money for more than a year breached his oath and
transgressed the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such action did not
merely deprive Licuanan of the use of her money but also caused her to file
a groundless suit against Pineda and on top of that, Licuanan had to defend
herself in a damage suit filed against her in turn by Pineda. In all, Melo’s
actuations make him guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in
office. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has
violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, besmirched the
name of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the
trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the
severest punishment of disbarment.
 CANON 16

CHUA & HSIA v. ATTY. MESINA, JR.

(A.C. No. 4904, August 12, 2004)

FACTS:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia
administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina, Jr., for breach
of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother.

Respondent's mother defaulted in paying a loan that she obtained in a bank,
thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother if paying the
said obligation, to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among
that that in consideration for the act of complainants, the property which
they are leasing will be transferred to their name. The complainants
complied with the terms of the agreement. A deed of sale concerning such
property was executed. However, to evade liability for paying capital gains
tax, respondent instructed complainants to execute another deed of sale
which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in
effective.

Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents

instructed his clients, the herein complainants, to execute a simulated deed
of sale which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to his mother.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

HELD:
Yes. The Court finds that indeed, the respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct. First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of
Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes, he
violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as
he did defraud not a private party but the government is aggravating.
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another
document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear
that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he
committed dishonesty. Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled
his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the owner’s copy
of his mother’s title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four
months, have a deed of sale executed by his mother in favor of complainants,
he likewise committed dishonesty. That the signature of “Felicisima M.
Melencio” in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985
document or even both.

A propos is this Court’s following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the
business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in
his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is required in
business dealings where the parties trade at “arms length.” Business
transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an
attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and
ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability
of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor.

Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the

reconveyance of the Melencio property to complainants, consideration of
whether he should be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in
the civil case filed for the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership
while that in the case at bar is moral fitness.

Respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct,

hereby DISBARRED.
 CANON 16

ARROYO-POSIDIO VS. ATTY. VITAN

(A.C. No. 6051, April 2, 2007)

FACTS:
In the instant case, respondent Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan received the
amount of P100,000.00 as legal fees from complainant for filing additional
claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo. After several
months, however, respondent failed to institute an action. Judgment is
rendered in favor of the complainant for the complaint filed before the MTC
for an action to recover the sum of money and damages against the
respondent. The respondent appealed to the RTC which affirmed the MTC
decision in toto. The respondent Atty. Issued an amount of P120,000.00 in
favor of the complainant but the check was dishonored as the account was
closed. Respondent refused to honor his obligation and denied the
complainants allegations, claiming that the said amount was partial
payment for his services. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty
from findings of the Investigating Commissioner from suspension to
reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will warrant a more
severe penalty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Vitan’s refusal to return the payment received for
services which were not rendered constitutes a violation of his oath and of
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requires the lawyer to account for all money or property collected or
received for or from his client. Where a client gives money to his lawyer for
a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment,
consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the
lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it,
immediately return the money to his client. Respondent's refusal to return
complainant's money upon demand, his failure to comply with the lawful
orders of the trial court, as well as the issuance of a bouncing check, reveal
his failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
believes that a penalty of suspension is called for under the circumstances.
Thus, Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is suspended from the practice of law for one
year effective from notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt more severely.
 CANON 16

RAMOS VS. ATTY. MANDAGAN

(A.C. No. 11128, April 6, 2016)

FACTS:
Complainant Pedro Ramos alleged that respondent Atty. Maria
Nympha C. Mandagan demanded from him P300,000.00 to be used as a bail
bond for a murder case filed against him before the Sandiganbayan in the
event that his petition for bail in the said criminal case is granted. The
respondent collected an additional amount of P10,000.00 for operating
expenses. Ramos' petition for bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Moreover, Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning the
amount of P300,000.00 despite the demand sent by Ramos' counsel. In her
answer as directed by the IBP-CBD, respondent argued that the said amount
was not intended for payment of bail, but as mobilization expenses for
preparation of witnesses, defenses, and other documentary exhibits for both
Ramos and his co-accused Gary Silawon. Atty. Mandagan likewise alleged
that Ramos never paid her for acceptance, appearance fees, and legal
services rendered in the entire course of the proceedings until her
withdrawal as counsel. The Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD
was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution,
finding Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to render
an accounting of funds, and recommended that Atty. Mandagan be
suspended for a period of 1 year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer is liable for gross misconduct in
violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mandagan's failure to make an accounting or to return the
money to Ramos is a violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty.
Mandagan should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to
her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of
fidelity and trust from members of the bar. Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed
to act in accordance with the rule stated in Canon 16 of the CPR: “A lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into
his possession.”; Rule 16.01: “A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the clien.t” and Rule 16.03: “A
lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand.”
 CANON 16

LEMOINE V. BALON
(A.C. No. 5829)

FACTS:
French national Daniel Lemoine engaged the legal services of Atty.
Amadeo Balon as arranged by Lemoine’s friend Garcia, regarding an
insurance claim with the Metropolitan Insurance Company. On December
1998, Lemoine left for France. When he returned to the Philippines on
January 1999, respondent said that the claim was still pending. It was not
until December 1999, that complainant found out that there was already a
settlement made between Metropolitan Insurance and Balon on December
1998. Balon received the amount of P525,000. However he refused to turn
over the proceeds of the claim to Lemoine, contending that he is entitled to
50% thereof. He also alleged that he gave Lemoine’s friend Garcia a total
amount of P233,000, which the respondent argued, was the amount of
insurance claim Lemoine was entitled to less the attorney’s fees and
expenses.

Lemoine filed a verified complaint against Balon for estafa and

misconduct before the IBP.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Balon violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Canon 16 states that “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.” Balon breached
this canon the moment he did not inform Lemoine that he has received the
proceeds of the insurance claim. That he did not bring the matter to judicial
determination was indicative of his purpose to coerce the client into agreeing
that he receive 50% of the proceeds. In addition, respondent’s claim that he
already delivered the amount of P233,000 to Garcia without documentation
was betrayed by the respondent’s statement that he and Garcia were not on
good terms at that time. It was also hard to believe that a lawyer would make
a transaction without documenting such.
Atty. Balon was consequently disbarred for being guilty of
malpractice, deceit, and gross misconduct in the practice of his profession as
a lawyer. Additionally, he was ordered to deliver the amount of P525,000 to
complainant Lemoine within 30 days from notice.
 CANON 16

LINSANGAN V. ATTY. TOLENTINO

(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

FACTS:
Complainant Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Linsangan Law Office filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of
professional services.

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe

Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation.
Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection
on their claims.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit

of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever
his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. By engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as
borrower, respondent violated Rule 16.04:

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless
the client’s interests 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.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind

so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as
his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect
acquires interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its
outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his
own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which
may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in
violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.
 CANON 16

ATTY. RICARDO SOLOMON VS ATTY. JOSELITO FRIAL

(AC No. 7820, September 12, 2008)

FACTS:
According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of Manila, instead of
depositing the attached cars in the court premises, turned them over to Atty.
Frial, Lo's counsel. Atty. Salomon claimed that on several occasions, the
Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by unauthorized individuals. As to
the Volvo, Atty. Salomon averred that during mediation, Atty. Frial
deliberately withheld information as to its whereabouts. As it turned out
later, the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, but the court was not
immediately put on notice of this development.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline the Commission observed that

while there is perhaps no direct evidence tying up Atty. Frial with the use of
the Nissan Sentra, the unyielding fact remains that it was being used by
other persons during the time he was supposed to have custody of it. In
addition, whoever drove the Nissan Sentra on those occasions must have
received the car key from Atty. Frial. When Atty. Frial took custody of the
Nissan Sentra and Volvo cars, he was duty bound to keep and preserve these
in the same condition he received them so as to fetch a good price should the
vehicles be auctioned. As to the burnt Volvo, the destruction of the Volvo in
Atty. Frial's residence was not an ordinary occurrence; it was an event that
could have not easily escaped his attention. Accordingly, there is a strong
reason to believe that Atty. Frial deliberately concealed the destruction of
said vehicle from the court during the hearings in Civil Case No. The
Commission thus recommended that Atty. Frial be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Frial violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, the
Court finds Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached cars
and grave misconduct.

From the evidence adduced during the investigation, there is no

question that Atty. Frial is guilty of grave misconduct arising from his
violation of Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 which states a lawyer shall account for
all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Money of
the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly
and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be
used by him.

A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is

expected to respect the court's order and processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell
short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of attachment the
court issued. Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking
good care of the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra
car by persons who had no business using it. He did not inform the court or
at least the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that
he took custody of them without so much as informing the court, let alone
securing, its authority.
 CANON 16

TANNU REDDI VS ATTY. DIOSDADO SERBIO, JR.

(AC No. 7027, January 30, 2009)

FACTS:
The complainant nurtured philanthropic desires of her own consisting
primarily in opening a hospital with modern facilities in an underdeveloped
part of Asia. Together with Immaculada Luistro, a Filipino citizen, who was
her assistant of over 10 years, complainant visited Philippines for the first
time in 2000. Noting the level of poverty in the country and the lack of
medical services for the poor, she decided to put up a hospital. Immaculada
suggested to complainant to consider engaging in the real estate business in
the Philippines in order to speed up the generation of funds. Heeding the
suggestion, complainant returned to the Philippines in 2003 to explore
opportunities in the real estate business. Complainant was introduced to
respondent who would help her acquire real properties for development
and/or resale. Since she could not acquire ownership of lands in the
Philippines, respondent advised her to use corporate vehicles to effect the
purchases. Three corporations were thus formed — Tagaytay Twins, Inc.,
Manila Chic Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc. However, complainant was
unaware that the transactions of sale of several lands she had entered into
were all bogus, since the sellers were not the real owners of the land or the
land itself is non-existent.

Complainant demanded from respondent the return of the amount of

US$3,000,000, claimed to be part of the total sum of money she had sent to
him for all the transactions that did not come about. No amount has been
returned to complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 state that “A lawyer shall hold in trust
all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession”
and “A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client." In the present case, respondent failed to account for
the sums of money he received from complainant and failed to return the
same upon demand. All that respondent presented to account for the
money is a handwritten acknowledgment of a supposed partial payment of
P500,000 for the Makati property, purportedly executed by one Mangco.
By any standard, this document is a mere piece of paper, Mangco not
having been presented, if he exists at all, to confirm that he indeed issued
the receipt. Since respondent failed to credibly account, upon demand, for
the money held by him in trust — an element of misappropriation —
complainant' claim that respondent employed deceit on her is established.
 CANON 17

TIONG v. ATTY. FLORENDO

(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)

FACTS:
The complainant and his wife Ma. Elena T. Tiong are real estate lessors
in Baguio City. They engaged the services of respondent as legal counsel and
administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the
United States of America. Sometime in 1993, the complainant began to
suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit affair. Later on, it
was confirmed and respondent admitted the relationship. The parties met
again on the 15th of May 1995 and in the presence of a notary public,
respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their
illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness.
Notwithstanding the affidavit, complainant instituted the present suit for
disbarment charging the respondent of gross immorality and grave
misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
xxx A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. xxx In the case at bar, the respondent
violated trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant by his act of
having an affair with his clients wife. It showed his utmost moral depravity
and low regard for the ethics of his profession. Thus, respondent s found
guilty of gross immorality.
 CANON 17

CREDITO, ET AL. v. ATTY. SABIO

(A.C. No. 4920, October 19, 2005)

FACTS:
Complainants charged Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company (Biscom)
of illegal dismissal. Biscom appealed to the NLRC which reversed the labor
arbitrer’s Decision that ordered the reinstatement of complaints to their
former jobs and the payment of back wages which and dismissed the
Complaint. Complainants asked respondent to elevate the case to the
Supreme Court and allegedly gave the respondent money from their
members. The Petition was dismissed which Atty. Sabio allegedly kept from
the complainants’ knowledge for more than three years. The allegation was
refuted by the respondent and according to him the Motion for
Reconsideration was not filed out of time but was denied by the Court.

In the Report and Recommendation of the IBP, respondent was found

guilty of simple negligence, illegal and unjust actuations as a practicing
lawyer.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that xxx A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. xxx In the
case at bar, Atty. Sabio failed to pay the total revised docket and other legal
fees and to attach the required certification on forum shopping that leads to
the dismissal of the Petition of the complainants and he overlooked basic
procedural requirements. Strict compliance with the required payment had
always been enjoined since docket and other legal fees for appeals and
petitions are mere statutory privileges and not matters of right. There was
negligence in complying with the Circular when he failed to attach
certification of non-forum shopping and neglected to show he had pleaded.
The respondent failed to pay the Court the required amount on time even if
he was entrusted with enough money for the filing of the petition whether
the contributions were from his 40 clients who signed the Petition or 200
clients in the labor case. Also, he failed to inform his clients on the status of
the Petition. The clients individually followed up the case meaning he did
not really verbally inform them. Thus, the Court agreed with the IBP that
Atty. Sabio should be disciplined, for violating Canon 17and 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
 CANON 17

ROLLON v. ATTY. NARAVAL

(A.C. No. 6424, March 2005)

FACTS:
On October of 2000, Consorcia Rollon, the complainant, went to the
office of Atty. Camilo F. Naraval, herein respondent, together with her son,
Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance in a case filed against her before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 6, Davao City entitled 'Rosita Julaton
vs. Consorcia S. Rollon' for Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer for
Attachment. After going over the documents the complainant brought with
her pertaining to the said case, Atty. Naraval agreed to be her lawyer and
required her to pay the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for
the filing and partial service fee, which was paid by her on October 18, 2000.
However, Rollon was informed later by her son that Atty. Naraval was not
able to act on her case because the latter was so busy. Even after several
follow-ups were made with Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on
the complainant’s case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Naraval is guilty of violating Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES. Canon 17 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.
Practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can efficiently
handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree to
handle a case, they should undertake the task with dedication and care. If
they do any less, then they fail their lawyer's oath. The court stated that the
circumstances of the case indubitably show that after receiving the amount
of P8,000 as filing and partial service fee, respondent failed to render any
legal service in relation to the case of complainant. His continuous inaction
despite repeated follow-ups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and
appalling indifference toward his client's cause, in brazen disregard of his
duties as a lawyer. Not only that. Despite her repeated demands, he also
unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had been
entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted
to him. Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should
have given her a candid, honest opinion on the merits and the status of the
case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating

Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from
notice of this Decision, complainant's eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus
interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000,
until fully paid. Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office
of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National Office and the Davao City
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. SO ORDERED.
 CANON 17

BRENNISEN v. ATTY. CONTAWI

(A.C. No. 7481, April 24, 2012)

FACTS:
Lorenzo Brennise, herein complainant, is the registered owner of a
parcel of land located in San Dionisio, Parañaque City covered by Transfer
Certi1cate of Title (TCT) No. 21176 2 of the Register of Deeds for the Province
of Rizal. Being a resident of the United States of America (USA), he entrusted
the administration of the subject property to Atty. Ramon Contawi, the
respondent, together with the corresponding owner's duplicate title.
Unbeknownst to complainant, however, respondent, through a spurious
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) 3 dated February 22, 1989, mortgaged and
subsequently sold the subject property to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale 4 dated November 15, 2001. As a
result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 150814 5
issued in favor of Ho. Thus, on April 16, 2007, complainant filed the instant
administrative complaint against respondent for having violated his oath as
a lawyer, causing him damage and prejudice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Contawi violated his lawyer's oath when he
mortgaged and sold complainant's property, which was entrusted to him,
without the latter's consent.

HELD:
Yes. The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of
Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors that respondent
acted with deceit when, through the use of a falsified document, he effected
the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his client's property for his personal
benefit. Indisputably, respondent disposed of complainant's property
without his knowledge or consent, and partook of the proceeds of the sale
for his own beneft. His contention that he merely accommodated the request
of his then financially-incapacitated office assistants to confirm the spurious
SPA is implausible, as he was fully aware that complainant's signature
reflected thereon was forged. As aptly opined by Commissioner De Mesa,
the fraudulent transactions involving the subject property were effected
using the owner's duplicate title, which was in respondent's safekeeping and
custody during complainant's absence.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, having

clearly violated his lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional
Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct, is
DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
 CANON 17

FORONDA VS. ATTY. ALVAREZ, JR.

(A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014)

FACTS:
Complainant, Almira C. Foronda sought the services of the respondent
for the nullification of her marriage and the latter agreed for a fee of
P195,000.00. She expected the immediate filing of the petition for the nullity
of her marriage after the full payment of attorney's fees on June 10, 2008.
However, the respondent filed the said petition only on July 16, 2009. The
respondent gave out different reasons for the delay in an attempt to
exculpate himself. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the
week after she signed the contract of service with the respondent, the latter
invited her to be an investor in the lending business allegedly ran by the
respondent's sister-in-law. The respondent failed to pay the entire obligation
as promised and he issued security checks to the complainant twice, but both
were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. The complainant
seeks the disbarment of the respondent. In a mandatory conference before
the IBP-CBD, the Investigating Commissioner, recommended the penalty of
two years suspension from the practice of law with a warning that a
repetition of the offenses shall merit a heavier penalty. This was modified by
the Board of Governors of the IBP and it directed the suspension of the
respondent from the practice of law for one year with warning that
repetition of the similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for violation of Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Once a lawyer 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 (Baldado v. Mejica). It cannot be denied that the
respondent's unfulfilled promise to settle his obligation and the issuance of
worthless checks have seriously breached the complainant's trust. The Court
finds that the penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law is
commensurate, with a stern warning that a repetition of any of the
infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a
heavier penalty.
 CANON 17

NONATO VS. ATTY. FUDOLIN, JR.

(A.C. No. 10138, June 16, 2015)

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. replaced Atty. Garcia as
representative of the complainant’s father, the late Restituto Nonato in an
ejectment proceeding filed before the MTC of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental.
The complainant asserted that during the pendency of the ejectment
proceedings, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto of the
status and developments in the case. Restituto could not contact the
respondent despite his continued efforts. Respondent failed to file his
position paper despite notice from the MTC requiring him to do so. His
omission greatly prejudiced his client as the Court in fact dismissed the
ejectment suit. The respondent wrote the complainant and apologized for
his repeated failure to communicate with him. He reasoned out that he failed
to file the position paper due to his poor health. In a Resolution, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation for the respondent’s
suspension for one month from the practice of law. The IBP Board of
Governors denied the respondent’s motion to reconsider the resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent could be held administratively liable
for negligence in the performance of duty.

HELD:
Yes. In this case, the record clearly shows that the respondent has been
remiss in the performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel. He neglected
to file the required position paper, and did not give his full commitment to
maintain and defend his client's interests. Aside from failing to file the
required pleading, the respondent never exerted any effort to inform his
client of the dismissal of the ejectment case. The respondent's excuse that he
had an undetected stroke and was suffering from other illnesses is
unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. The respondent could have
requested an extension of time to file the required position paper, or at the
very least, informed his client of his medical condition. All told, the
respondent violated, among other things, Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the respondent is suspended from the
practice of law for a period of two years.
 CANON 17

VILLANUEVA VS. GONZALES

FACTS:
In 2000, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the
purpose of transferring the title over a piece of property located in Talisay,
Cebu. Complainant, as mortgagee, wanted to transfer the title to her name
because the mortgagor failed to redeem the property within the redemption
period and the sheriff had already issued a sheriff's definite deed of sale in
complainant's favor. Complainant gave respondent P8,000 as acceptance fee,
the property's TCT, and other pertinent documents.

After receiving the money, TCT, and other documents, respondent

began to avoid complainant. Whenever complainant went to respondent's
office at BPI Building, Escario St., Cebu City, respondent's secretary would
tell her that respondent could not be disturbed because he was either
sleeping or doing something important.

In a letter dated 2 July 2003, complainant told respondent that she had
lost her trust and confidence in him and asked him to return the P8,000, TCT,
and other documents. Respondent refused to return the money, TCT, and
other documents. After some time and after complainant's daughter
confronted him, respondent finally returned the money. However, until
now, respondent has not returned the TCT and other documents. Thus,
complainant filed a complaint dated 10 September 2003 against respondent
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). ESHAIC

In an Order dated 7 October 2003, IBP Director for Bar Discipline

Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to the
complaint. Respondent did not submit an answer. In an Orde dated 21 April
2004, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline Rebecca Villanueva-Maala
ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint, and set the
mandatory conference on 2 June 2004. Respondent did not submit an answer
or attend the mandatory conference. The Commission on Bar Discipline
considered the case submitted for resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. Canon
18 of the Code states that "[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.”

Clearly, respondent did not serve complainant with fidelity,

competence, or diligence. He totally neglected complainant's cause. An
attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant was
established when respondent accepted the acceptance fee. Since then, he
should have exercised due diligence in furthering his client's cause and
given it his full attention. Respondent did not render any service.

Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he is bound by the Canons of

the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Emiliano Court Townhouses v. Atty.
Dioneda, the Court held that the act of receiving money as acceptance fee for
legal services and subsequently failing to render such service is a clear
violation of Canons 17 and 18.
 CANON 17

PITCHER V. ATTY. GAGATE

(A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013)

FACTS:
Complainant Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Rustico B. Gagate to settle the business affairs
of her deceased husband, David B. Pitcher (David).

Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Moscoso Bantegui

(Bantegui) at the company premises in order to discuss the settlement of
David’s interest in the company. Subsequently, however, respondent,
without the consent of Bantegui, caused the change in the lock of the
Consulting Edge office door. This prompted Bantegui to file a complaint a
complaint against complainant and respondent. In turn, complainant and
respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, whereby
respondent undertook the filing of the cases against Bantegui, for which
complainant paid the amount of P150,000.00 as acceptance fee and
committed herself to pay respondent P1,000.00 for every court hearing.

Charge of grave coercion were filed against complainant and

respondent and were issued warrants of arrest against them. Due to the
foregoing, respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had
filed the necessary motions in court. Eventually, however, respondent
abandoned the grave coercion case and stopped communicating with
complainant. Failing to reach respondent despite diligent efforts,
complainant filed an administrative case before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 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 relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that
lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause. However, respondent
abandoned his clients cause while the grave coercion case against them was
pending.

Respondent’s act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to

evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be maintained as proper legal
advice since the same constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of
law. By virtue of the foregoing, he remained unmindful of his client’s trust
in him – in particular, her trust that respondent would only provide her with
the proper with the proper legal advice in pursuing her interests.
 CANON 17

ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME VS ATTY.

EDGAR S. ORRO
(AC No. 10945, February 23, 2016)

FACTS:
Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame
(Ramiscals) engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Edgar S. Orro to
handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the declaration of
the nullity of title to a parcel of land situated in the Province of Isabela. Upon
receiving the P10,000.00 acceptance fee from them, the respondent handled
the trial of the case until the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided it in their
favor. As expected, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), and
they ultimately filed their appellants' brief. Upon receipt of the appellants'
brief, the respondent requested from the complainants an additional amount
of P30,000.00 for the preparation and submission of their appellees' brief in
the CA. They obliged and paid him the amount requested.

Later on, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The respondent did
not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the CA which they only
learned about from their neighbors. They endeavored to communicate with
the respondent but their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally
reached him, he asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing
a motion for reconsideration in their behalf, albeit telling them that such
motion would already be belated. Even so, they paid to him the amount
sought. To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion
for reconsideration; hence, the decision attained finality, eventually
resulting in the loss of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a
probable worth of P3,391,600.00.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
 Yes. As a member of the Law Profession in the Philippines, the
respondent had the foregoing professional and ethical burdens. But he
obviously failed to discharge his burdens to the best of his knowledge and
discretion and with all good fidelity to his clients. By voluntarily taking up
their cause, he gave his unqualified commitment to advance and defend
their interest therein. Even if he could not thereby guarantee to them the
favorable outcome of the litigation, he reneged on his commitment
nonetheless because he did not file the motion for reconsideration in their
behalf despite receiving from them the P7,000.00 he had requested for that
purpose. He further neglected to regularly update them on the status of the
case, particularly on the adverse result, thereby leaving them in the dark on
the proceedings that were gradually turning against their interest. Updating
the clients could have prevented their substantial prejudice by enabling
them to engage another competent lawyer to handle their case. As it
happened, his neglect in that respect lost for them whatever legal remedies
were then available. His various omissions manifested his utter lack of
professionalism towards them.
 CANON 17

JOSE FRANCISCO BAENS VS ATTY JONATHAN SEMPIO

(AC No. 10378, June 9, 2014)

FACTS:
The complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent
him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife,
Lourdes V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint affidavit dated March 15, 2010,
the complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent: (1) despite
receiving the sum of P250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in the said case,
failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the complainant's wife
who successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08, for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage on December 8, 2008; (2) even with the complainant furnishing
him a copy of the Summons dated December 15, 2008, belatedly filed an
Answer and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the
15-day period stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the
petition on the ground of improper venue as neither the complainant nor his
wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; (4) never bothered to
check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the
hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2403-08 was
decided on October 27, 2009 without the complainant being able to present
his evidence.

The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of

violation of the Code and recommended that the respondent be suspended
for six (6) months from the practice of law. Specifically, the Investigating
Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to the
case and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities
considering the fact that he has already been fully compensated.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
 Yes. The Court held that it cannot be doubted that the respondent
violated Canon 17. The respondent is expected to maintain at all times a
high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free. His reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his
client of due process and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients'
interests. A lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely
reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but
also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal,
attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the
reduced pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch,
and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the
court.