PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |1

Q4 (Canon 19) respondent had no legal basis to implement the take over of
RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) vs. RBCI and that it was a naked power grab without any
ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO semblance of legality whatsoever. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.
added that the administrative complaint against respondent
Canon 19: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within before the IBP is independent of the dismissal and suspension
the bounds of the law. of the criminal cases against respondent. Commissioner
Villadolid, Jr. also noted that RBCI complied with the IBP Rules
Doctrine: A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to of Procedure when they filed a verified complaint and
attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel submitted duly notarized affidavits. Moreover, both RBCI and
his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking respondent agreed to dispense with the mandatory conference
justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their hearing and, instead, simultaneously submit their position
adversaries papers. On 20 March 2006, the IBP Board of Governors issued
Resolution No. XVII-2006-120 which declared that respondent
Facts: On 18 April 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment dismally failed to live up to the exacting standards of the law
against respondent.[2] RBCI alleged that respondent violated profession and suspended respondent from the practice of law
his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code). for one year with a warning that repetition of similar conduct
According to RBCI, on 1 April 2002, respondent and his clients, will warrant a more severe penalty. On 5 July 2006, respondent
Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 11 December 2008
Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel (Nazareno- Resolution, the IBP denied respondents motion.
Relampagos group), through force and intimidation, with the
use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the Issue: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 19 and
premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional
(Garay), the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and Responsibility?
installed their own staff to run the bank.mIn his comment,
respondent denied RBCIs allegations. Respondent explained Held: Yes. SC affirm the IBP Board of Governors resolution.
that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance
him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and
validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyers duty to
was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain
management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening
was sent to Garay but he refused to comply. On 1 April 2002, confidence in the legal system. Canon 19 of the Code provides
to ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code
bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with
violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm. the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only
Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
with the bank. Respondent, through the orders of the lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an
Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the intentional wrong to their adversaries.
banks vault. Respondent added that the criminal complaint for
malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was already We agree with Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.s conclusion:
dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered
suspended because of the existence of a prejudicial question. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace.
Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of
against him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a
against RBCIs counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol. tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but,
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to
evidence to prove their allegations. Respondent added that the protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to
affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified, assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and that none of the While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy
documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies. or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made
within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense
Ruling of the IBP: On 28 September 2005, IBP Commissioner of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice.
Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.) submitted
his report and declared that respondent failed to live up to the A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of
exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of law and justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate.
justice. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. recommended the His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension from the observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair
practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
the repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and
more severe penalty. According to Commissioner Villadolid, Jr., unethical.
respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could
not just forcibly take over the management and premises of WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. James Benedict
RBCI without a valid court order. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and
noted that the right to manage and gain majority control over 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
RBCI was one of the issues pending before the trial court in we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for one year
Civil Case No. 6628. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. said that effective upon finality of this Decision.
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |2

R1
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar A.C. No. 6317 August 31, 2006
Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal record as LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant, vs. ATTY.
attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated ROGELIO P. TERRADO, Respondent.
Bar of the Philippines and in all courts in the country for their
information and guidance. On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint1 was filed
by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty.
Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and
conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of
payment representing attorney’s fees.

According to the complainant, she engaged the services of

respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist
in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank,
Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the
release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and
registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is
the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna,
Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before

the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect her interests in the
Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into
to end LRC Case No. B-2610.2

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred

that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was
payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with
Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No.
B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna.

The complaint was referred3 to the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On September 21, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner
submitted his report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules
1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provide:

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee

for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law,
except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or

associate that, upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid
over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to the persons
specified in the agreement; or

b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal

business of a deceased lawyer; or

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees

in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in
part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.

In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02

of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Investigating
Commissioner opined that:
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |3

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank
complainant. To be made the suspension or disbarment of a relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent admitted that he
lawyer, the charge against him must be established by explained the contents of the agreement to complainant before
convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating
a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its Commissioner observed that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal
disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to
well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair
x x x. and reasonable fees.11

In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of Respondent’s disregard for his client’s interests is evident in
respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and the iniquitous stipulations in the compromise agreement where
solely for the recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account the complainant conceded the validity of the foreclosure of her
of complainant subsequent acts and events say otherwise, to property; that the redemption period has already expired thus
wit: consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her
claims against it.12 As found by the Investigating
1.) The Php70,000.00 legal fees for the recovery of a Commissioner, complainant agreed to these concessions
Php180,000.00 savings deposit is too high; because respondent misled her to believe that she could still
redeem the property after three years from the foreclosure. The
2.) Respondent actively acted as complainant’s lawyer to duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client’s interests commences
effectuate the compromise agreement. from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the final
disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of
By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney
which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to zeal, care and utmost devotion.13
practice law. Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a
compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance Respondent’s admission14 that he divided the legal fees with
that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her two other people as a referral fee does not release him from
foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful in certain cases.15
conduct.4
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended: the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the following
grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime
violations to protect the public and the legal profession from his involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6)
kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and
months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
be severely dealt with.5 authority.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of In Santos v. Lazaro16 and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,17 we held
the investigating commissioner.6 that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a
basic postulate in legal ethics. When a lawyer takes a client’s
We agree with the findings of the IBP. cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show vigilance and attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the
that they possessed and continue to possess the legal trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable
qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts
all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, and society.
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform
their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his
and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of client’s case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this
Responsibility.7 duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer
should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle
Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, in order to sufficiently protect his clients’ interests. It is not
immoral or deceitful conduct8 and are mandated to serve their enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the
clients with competence and diligence.9 They shall not neglect legal matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal
a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take
connection therewith shall render them liable.10 the cudgels for his client’s cause.18

Respondent’s claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only to the In view of the foregoing, we find that suspension from the
recovery of complainant’s savings deposit from Planter’s practice of law for six months is warranted. In addition, he is
Development Bank cannot be sustained. Records show that he directed to return to complainant the amount he received by
acted as complainant’s counsel in the drafting of the way of legal fees pursuant to existing jurisprudence.19
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |4

reasonableness or the, unconscionable character of attorney's

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling within the
violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of regulatory prerogative of the courts. In the instant case, Attys.
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the Roxas and Pastor received an amount which was equal to
practice of law for six (6) months effective from notice, and forty-four percent (44%) of the just compensation paid
STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt (including the yield on the bonds) by the NHA to the
with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN, within Zuzuarreguis, or an amount equivalent to P23,980,000.00 of
thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to the P54,500,000.00. Considering that there was no full blown
complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this Court hearing in the expropriation case, ending as it did in a
proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom. Compromise Agreement, the 44% is, undeniably,
unconscionable and excessive under the circumstances. Its
R2 reduction is, therefore, in order.
Romeo G. Roxas, et. al. vs. Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., et.
al. R3
G.R. No. 152072 VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, Complainant, versus ATTY.
January 31, 2006 MACARIO D. CARPIO, Respondent. A. C. No. 6281

Facts: The case is a consolidation of two petitions. Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable
Respondents engaged the services of both Atty. Roxas and fees.
Pastor to represent them in their civil case filed before the 141 th
Branch of the RTC of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. Facts: Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners
26804, by the National Housing Authority. The case involved of a parcel of land consisting of 1,890 square meters located at
the expropriation of parcels of land belonging to the Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Pias, Metro Manila. In 1994,
Respondents covering a total land area of 1,790,570.36 square complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC)
meters. Eventually, both parties entered into a compromise Case for the registration of the aforesaid property. During the
agreement wherein the Respondents would be paid, as just course of the proceedings, complainant engaged the services
compensation, P19.50 per square meter payable in NHA of respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his
bonds. In total, the Respondents were to be paid the amount of original counsel, Atty. Samuel Marquez, figured in a vehicular
P34,916,122.00. For its part, the NHA released the amount of accident.
P54,500,000.00 as payment. The difference between the two
amounts, the Court noted, was the yield on the bonds, Complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was to
amounting to P19,583,878.00. However, based on the receipts pay respondent Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as
issued by the Respondents to Atty. Roxas, to whom the bonds acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as
were released by the NHA, the Respondents only received appearance fee. Complainant paid respondent the amounts
P30,520,000. When demand for the yield on the bonds were due him, as evidenced by receipts duly signed by the latter.
unheeded by Petitioners, Respondents filed a civil action for During the last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the
Sum of Money and Damages before the 9th Branch of the RTC additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for
of Quezon City against, among others, Petitioners. The RTC the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further
held in favor of the Petitioners but on appeal the CA, the latter strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus twenty
overturned the decision ordering as well the return of the yields percent (20%) of the total area of the subject property as
minus P4,476,426.27. The CA based the latter amount on the additional fees for his services.
December 10, 1985 Agreement executed by the parties which
stipulated that the legal fees to be paid to the Petitioners was Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was
any amount in excess of the P17.00 per square meter price contrary to their agreement. Moreover, complainant co-owned
point the Respondents agreed to. Both parties appealed the the subject property with his siblings, and he could not have
decision in their separate petitions for review. In the second agreed to the amount being demanded by respondent without
petition, where the Zuzuarreguis are the Petitioners, they the knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. As a result of
contend that both Atty. Roxas and Atty. Pastor violated their complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the
obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility. latter became furious and their relationship became sore. On
January 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered in LRC Case No.
Issue: Whether or not Attys. Roxas and Pastor violated the M-226, granting the petition for registration, which Decision
Canons under the CPR. was declared final and executory.

Held: Yes. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and On April 3, 2000, complainant went to the RD to get the
Pastor were to receive contingent fees for their professional owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
services. It is a deeply-rooted rule that contingent fees are not bearing No. 0-94. He was surprised to discover that the same
per se prohibited by law. They are sanctioned by Canon 13 of had already been claimed by and released to respondent.
the Canons of Professional Ethics and Canon 20, Rule 20.01 Respondent insisted that complainant first pay him the
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, in cases PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the property equivalent to
where contingent fees are sanctioned by law, the same should 378 square meters, in exchange for which, respondent would
be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, and deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT. Once again,
should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its complainant refused the demand, for not having been agreed
reasonableness, such that under Canon 20 of the Code of upon.
Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is tasked to charge only
fair and reasonable fees. Attorney's fees are unconscionable if In seeking the disbarment or the imposition of the appropriate
they affront one's sense of justice, decency or reasonableness. penalty upon respondent, complainant invokes the provision of
It becomes axiomatic therefore, that power to determine the the Code of Professional Responsibility:
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |5

Facts:
Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. - Spouses Manuel and Lolita Rafols had a civil case for
cancellation of a deed of sale before the RTC of
In its Report and Recommendationthe Integrated Bar of the General Santos City, presided by Judge Dizon, Jr.
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that - The spouses’ counsel was respondent, Atty Ricardo
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period G. Barrios.
of six (6) months for unjustly withholding from complainant the - During the pendency of the case, on 22 Dec.
owner's duplicate in the exercise of his so-called attorney's 1997,Atty. Barrios visited the complainants and told
lien. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the them that the judge wanted to talk to Manuel.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Thereafter, both Manuel and Atty. Barrios met Judge
Dizon at the East Royal Hotels coffee shop. The judge
Issue: Whether respondent should be suspended from the told Manuel that he, the judge, would resolve the
practice of law for unjustly withholding from complainant the case in Manuel and Lolita’s favor if they could deliver
owner's duplicate in the exercise of his so-called attorney's P150,000 to him at noon that day.
lien. - Manuel and Lolita were able to deliver P50,000 only.
The judge, two days later, demanded the balance of
Held: Yes. As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no P100,000, to which only 80,000 was delivered.
proof of any agreement between the complainant and the - The following month, on 20 January 1998, the judge
respondent that the latter is entitled to an additional demanded again the balance. This time, the spouses
professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area covered by were able to deliver the full amount. Right after
OCT No. 0-94. The agreement between the parties only shows handing the amount, the judge told them that the RTC
that respondent will be paid the acceptance fee and the judge in Iloilo City before whom the perpetuation of
appearance fees, which the respondent has duly received. the testimony of Soledad Provido was made should
Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees that still testify as a witness during the trial in his sala in
would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Hence, order for the spouses to win. The jusdge persuaded
respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client the spouses to give money also to that judge;
absence a clear and justifiable claim. otherwise, they should not blame him for the outcome
of the case.
In collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent - The spouses ultimately sensed that they were being
violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, fooled, and so, they consulted Larry Sevilla, their
which mandates that a lawyer shall charge only fair and mediamen friend. The details were released to the
reasonable fees. It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose media, and the exposé was published in the
additional professional fees upon his client which were never Newsmaker.
mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of - In the administrative case against the judge, the
his services. At the outset, respondent should have informed Supreme Court dismissed Judge Dizon from the
the complainant of all the fees or possible fees that he would
service.
charge before handling the case and not towards the near
- In the instant administrative case, the spouses
conclusion of the case. This is essential in order for the
presented more evidence, aside from the ones above,
complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay
against Atty. Barrios for his misconduct. The
respondent before engaging his services.
complainants related that Atty. Barrios demanded
P25,000 as his expenses in securing the testimony of
Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property
Provido. He also requested the spouses to borrow
belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in
P60,000 because he wanted to redeem his foreclosed
exchange for the release of said title deserve the imposition of
Isuzu Elf, and because he needed to give money to
disciplinary sanction. Hence, the ruling of the IBP Board of
his nephew who was about to go abroad for work.
Governors, adopting and approving with modification the report
and recommendation of the IBP-CBD that respondent be
Issue:
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
Whether or not Atty. Barrios should be disbarred.
months and that respondent be ordered to return the
Held:
complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 is hereby
Yes, Atty. Barrios is disbarred.
affirmed. However, the fifteen-day period from notice given to
1. In Rivera v. Corral, the SC held that a lawayer may be
respondent within which to return the title should be modified
disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his
and, instead, respondent should return the same immediately
professional or private capacity which shows him to
upon receipt of the Court's decision.
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer
R4
of the court.
SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. AND LOLITA B.
2. The respondent did not measure up to the exacting
RAFOLS, Complainants,
standards of the Law Profession, which demanded of
vs. ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, Respondent
him as an attorney the absolute abdication of any
[25 March 2010]
personal advantage that conflicted in any way, directly
or indirectly, with the interest of his clients. For
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and
monetary gain, he disregarded the vow to "delay no
consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs,
man for money or malice" and to "conduct myself as a
commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
compensation whatsoever related to his professional
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
employment from anyone other than the client.
to my clients" that he made when he took the
Lawyer’s Oath. He also disobeyed the explicit
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |6

command to him as an attorney "to accept no notarial commission for the years 2007 and 2008. Knowing that
compensation in connection with his client’s business the directive was rather questionable, respondent,
except from him or with his knowledge and nonetheless, desisted from law practice in due deference to the
approval." He conveniently ignored that the relation court order. Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for
between him and his clients was highly fiduciary in Clarification with the Supreme Court on account of Judge
nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and Farrales’ letters to all courts in Olongapo City and to some
confidential character. municipalities in Zambales, which "gave the impression that
3. Verily, the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct, Atty. De Dios is not yet allowed to resume her practice of law
which is "improper or wrong conduct, the and that her notarial commission for the years 2007 and 2008
transgression of some established and definite rule of is revoked." Acting on the said motion, the Court issued a
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in resolution on April 23, 2007 in this wise:
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment." Any gross misconduct of an A.C. No. 4943 (Diana de Guzman v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios) –
attorney in his professional or private capacity shows Respondent’s Urgent Motion for Clarification dated 14 March
him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a 2007 praying that the Court declare her to have served her six
ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension (6) months (sic) suspension and her resumption of law practice
or disbarment, because good moral character is an on 17 November 2001 onwards as proper is NOTED.
essential qualification for the admission of an attorney
and for the continuance of such privilege. Considering the motion for clarification, the Court resolves to
DEEM Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios to have SERVED her six (6)
R5 month suspension and her recommencement of law practice
A.C. No. 7472 March 30, 2010 on 17 November 2001 as PROPER pursuant to the Resolution
LIGAYA MANIAGO, Complainant, vs. dated 30 January 2002.
ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS, Respondent.
Respondent averred that for the period stated in the affidavit of
The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint dated April complainant Maniago, during which she allegedly practiced
2, 2007 filed by Ligaya Maniago, seeking the disbarment of law, she was neither suspended nor in any way prohibited from
Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios for engaging in the practice of law practice. The complaint, she added, was baseless and
despite having been suspended by the Court. malicious, and should be dismissed outright.

Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against In the Resolution dated September 12, 2007, the Court
Hiroshi Miyata, a Japanese national, before the Regional Trial referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
Court (RTC), Olongapo City, Branch 73, for violation of evaluation, report and recommendation. Initially, the OBC
Presidential Decree No. 603, docketed as Criminal Case No. directed the complainant to file a supplemental affidavit, stating
699-2002. The accused was represented by Atty. De Dios, with therein the exact period of appearances of Atty. De Dios and
office address at 22 Magsaysay Drive, Olongapo City. the particular courts where respondent appeared as counsel in
Complainant then learned from the RTC staff that Atty. De Dios the following cases: (1) Criminal Case No. 699-2002; (2) Civil
had an outstanding suspension order from the Supreme Court Case No. 355-0-2005; and (3) Sp. Proc. No. M-6153.
since 2001, and was, therefore, prohibited from appearing in
court. Complainant further alleges that there is a civil case In compliance therewith, complainant submitted a
(Civil Case No. 355-0-2005) and another case (Special Supplemental Affidavit in the vernacular, which reads:
Proceeding No. M-6153) filed against Miyata before the RTC,
Makati City, Branch 134, where Atty. De Dios appeared as his 2. Sa Criminal Case No. 699-2002 entitled People of the
counsel. Complainant averred that Atty. De Dios ought to be Philippines vs. Hiroshi Miyata ay [nagsimulang] mag[-]appear
disbarred from the practice of law for her flagrant violation and si Atty. Lourdes de Dios mula April 9, 2003, na [naka-]attach
deliberate disobedience of a lawful order of the Supreme ang Certification mula sa Branch 73[,] Regional Trial Court[,]
Court. Olongapo City.

In her Comment, Atty. De Dios admitted that there were cases 3. Sa Civil Case No. 355-0-2006 ay [nagsimulang]
filed against her client, Miyata. She, however, denied that she mag[-]appear si Atty. de Dios noong October 10, 2005,
was under suspension when she appeared as his counsel in nakasaad din ito sa Certification mula sa Branch 73, Regional
the cases. Trial Court of Olongapo City. At sa Sp. Proc. No. M-6153 ay ito
ay na[-]ifile ni Atty. de Dios noong September 26, 2005 at
Respondent explained that an administrative case was indeed hanggang ngayon ay pending pa sa Court of Appeals.
filed against her by Diana de Guzman, docketed as A.C. No.
4943, where she was meted the penalty of 6-month 4. Bilang karagdagan po ay naka[-]attach ang Certified Xerox
suspension. She served the suspension immediately upon Copy ng Minutes of the Session ng Subic Municipal Trial Court
receipt of the Court’s Resolution on May 16, 2001 up to na kung saan ay nag[-]appear si Atty. de Dios sa Civil Case
November 16, 2001. In a Manifestation filed on October 19, No. 042-01 entitled Andrea Lorenzo, plaintiff, -versus- Simeon
2001, respondent formally informed the Court that she was Pullido noong December 14, 2001.
resuming her practice of law on November 17, 2001, which she
actually did. 5. At makikita rin po sa Annex A-5 ng Comment ni Atty. de
Dios, x x x -
A problem arose when Judge Josefina Farrales, in her capacity
as Acting Executive Judge of the RTC, Olongapo City, 5.[a.] Nag file ng kaso si Atty. Lourdes de Dios noong May 17,
erroneously issued a directive on March 15, 2007, ordering 2001 entitled Shirley Pagaduan vs. Danilo Pagaduan[,] Civil
respondent to desist from practicing law and revoking her Case No. 234-0-2001. Ito ay ginawa ni Atty. de Dios isang (1)
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |7

araw pa lamang mula magsimula ang kanyang suspension resume her practice of law without submitting the required
noon[g] May 16, 2001. certifications and passing through the OBC for evaluation. In
order to avoid confusion and conflicting directives from the
5.b. Nag file din ng kaso si Atty. de Dios noong May 18, 2001 Court, the OBC recommended that the Court adopt a uniform
entitled Filmixco versus Dr. Ma. Perla Tabasondra-Ramos and policy on the matter of the lifting of the order of suspension of a
Dr. Ricardo Ramos Civil Case No. 236-0-2001. Ito ay dalawang lawyer from the practice of law.1avvphi1
(2) araw mula magsimula ang suspension ni Atty. de Dios
noong May 16, 2001. The Court notes the Report and Recommendation of the OBC.

5.c. At nag notaryo si Atty. de Dios ng isang (a) affidavit It must be remembered that the practice of law is not a right but
executed by Carolina C. Bautista noong May 16, 2001, (b) a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent
Affidavit executed by Jessica Morales-Mesa on May 17, 2001 regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance
at (c) isang Statement of non-liability of Alfredo C. Diaz on May with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.3 Whenever it is made
16, 2001. Ang mga pag notaryo na ito ay ginawa noong to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and
nagsimula na ang suspension ni Atty. de Dios noong May 16, confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only
2001. the right but also the duty of the Supreme Court, which made
him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering
6. Ginawa ko ang Supplemental Affidavit na ito bilang patunay within its Bar, to withdraw that privilege.4 However, as much as
sa mga nakasaad base sa aking personal na kaalamanan at the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer, it
mga dokumentong hawak ko upang ipakita na nilabag ni Atty. should, at the same time, also ensure that a lawyer may not be
de Dios ang kanyang suspension base sa sulat ni Deputy Clerk deprived of the freedom and right to exercise his profession
of Court and Bar Confidant Ma. Cristina B. Layusa na may unreasonably.
petsang 12 February 2007 at sa admission ni Atty. de Dios na
nagsimula ang kanyang suspension noong May 16, 2001. IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED that
the following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting
A Supplemental Comment was thereafter filed by respondent, of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
stating that there were no new matters raised in the
Supplemental Affidavit, and asserting that "the opinion of Bar 1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended
Confidant, Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa, as contained in her from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision
letter dated 12 February 2007, cannot supersede the imposing the penalty;
Resolution dated April 23, 2007 of this Honorable Court."
According to her, the resolution should be the "final nail to the 2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is
coffin of this case." immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15
days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof.
On November 18, 2008, the OBC submitted its Memorandum The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and
for the Court’s consideration. executory;

The OBC explained that the letter adverted to by complainant 3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent
in her affidavit was the OBC’s reply to an inquiry made by the shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office
Office of the Court Administrator regarding the status of Atty. of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted
De Dios.1 Therein, the OBC made it clear that the lifting of the from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court
suspension order was not automatic, following the during the period of his or her suspension;
pronouncement of the Court in J.K. Mercado and Sons
Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. and Spouses Jesus and Rosario 4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the
K. Mercado, complainants v. Atty. Eduardo de Vera and Jose Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the
Rongkales Bandalan, et al. and Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera v. courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or
Atty. Mervyn G. Encanto, et al., which states: her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;

The Statement of the Court that his suspension stands until he 5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of
would have satisfactorily shown his compliance with the respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension;
Court’s resolution is a caveat that his suspension could thereby
extend for more than six months. The lifting of a lawyer’s 6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a
in the Court’s decision, and an order from the Court lifting the more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to
enable [him] to resume the practice of his profession.2 R6
[A.C. No. 5834. February 22, 2011.]|
Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer must first TERESITA D. SANTECO, complainant, vs.
present proof(s) of his compliance by submitting certifications ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE, respondent.
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and from the
Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from the practice Canons 16, 18.03, 20
of law during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, FACTS: The case originated from an administrative complaint
after evaluation, and upon a favorable recommendation from filed by Teresita D. Santeco against respondent Atty. Luna B.
the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of suspension Avance for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, an action to
and thus allow him to resume the practice of law. The OBC declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for
alleged that it was unfortunate that this procedure was reconveyance and damages, which complainant had filed
overlooked in A.C. No. 4943, where Atty. De Dios was able to before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |8

On March 14, 2002, Investigating Commissioner As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the
Lydia A. Navarro submitted a Report finding dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect
respondent culpable as charged and recommended for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court
that she be suspended from the practice of law for two orders and processes.
(2) years. She found that: Here, respondent's conduct evidently fell short of what is
expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously
As it is, respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of possesses a habit of defying this Court's orders. She willfully
Professional Responsibility for having failed to disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice
account to the complainant the official receipt of the despite the five-year suspension order against her and even
supersedeas bond she got from complainant to misrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade
withdrew the same from the court relative to the said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to
ejectment case. comment on her continued law practice while still suspended,
Respondent also violated Canon 18.03 for having nothing was heard from her despite receipt of two Resolutions
failed to file the [petition for] certiorari before the Court from this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine
of Appeals as she promised the complainant and even imposed in the September 29, 2009 Resolution.
got litigation expenses relative to the same.
Likewise, respondent violated Canon 20 when she We have held that failure to comply with Court directives
discontinued her legal services for complainant constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination or disrespect
without any notice of withdrawal and even ignored the which merits a lawyer's suspension or even disbarment.
issuances of the Commission for her to answer the
complaint filed against her. In repeatedly disobeying this Court's orders, respondent
proved herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar.
In an En Banc Decision dated December 11, 2003, the Court Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself.
found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the
abandoning her client's cause in bad faith and persistent court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without any
explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended from the WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby
practice of law for a period of five years, and was likewise DISBARRED for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of
directed to return to complainant, within ten (10) days from lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ORDERED
notice, the amount of P3,900.00 which complainant paid her for STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.
the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
(CA), which she never filed. R7
FLORENCE TEVES MACARUBBO, Complainant, vs. ATTY.
Respondent moved to reconsider the decision but her motion EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO, Respondent
was denied. RE: PETITION (FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF
EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO.
Subsequently, while respondent's five-year suspension from
the practice of law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog- Doctrine: While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to
Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales, sent a discipline and even remove its errant officers, concomitant
letter-report to the Court Administrator informing the latter that to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have
respondent had appeared and actively participated in three reformed their ways as in this case.
cases wherein she misrepresented herself as "Atty. Liezl
Tanglao." When her opposing counsels confronted her and Facts:
showed to the court a certification regarding her suspension, In a Decision dated February 27, 2004, the Court
respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. disbarred respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo from the
Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with
years and that her suspension has already been lifted. Judge complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one
Amog-Bocar further stated that respondent nonetheless Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to Helen
withdrew her appearance from all the cases. Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted gross
immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon
Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter-report, the Court required 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
respondent to comment within ten (10) days from notice. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal for
Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment. The Compassion and Mercy which the Court denied with finality in
Court reiterated the directive to comment; otherwise the case the Resolution dated June 1, 2004. Eight years after or on June
would be deemed submitted for resolution based on available 4, 2012, respondent filed the instant Petition (For Extraordinary
records on file with the Court. Still, respondent failed to comply Mercy) seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll
despite notice. Accordingly, this Court issued a Resolution on of Attorneys. The Court initially treated the present suit as a
September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty of indirect second motion for reconsideration and accordingly, denied it
contempt. for lack of merit in the Resolution dated September 4, 2012.
On December 18, 2012, the same petition was endorsed to the
Court by the Office of the Vice President for re-evaluation.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the
Code Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo’s petition
HELD: Yes. The Court finds that respondent is unfit to continue for judicial clemency may be granted
as a member of the bar. Held:
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S |9

Yes. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, S1

Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing A.C. No. 7023. March 30, 2006.
for Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in BUN SIONG YAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. LEONARDO A.
resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit: AURELIO, respondent.
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These
shall include but should not be limited to certifications or FACTS: November 11, 2004, Bun Siong Yao filed against Atty.
testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar Leonardo A. Aurelio before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent (IBP) seeking for his disbarment for alleged violations of the
members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A Code of Professional Responsibility. Complaint alleged that:
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the
1. Since 1987, Yao retained the services of Aurelio as
same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong
his personal lawyer;
presumption of non-reformation.
2. Aurelio is a stockholder and the retained counsel of
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the
Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar
penalty to ensure a period of reform.
Textile Finishing Corporation of which Yao is a
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that
majority stockholder;
he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to
3. Yao purchased several parcels of land using his
good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
personal funds but were registered in the name of the
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual
corporations upon the advice of respondent;
aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal
4. Aurelio, who was also the brother in-law of Yao's wife,
scholarship and the development of the legal system or
had in 1999 a disagreement with the latter and
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for
thereafter Aurelio demanded the return of his
public service.
investment in the corporations but when Yao refused
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that
to pay, he filed:
may justify clemency.
a. eight charges for estafa and falsification of
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant
commercial documents against Yao and his
must, like any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy
wife and the other officers of the corporation;
the Court that he is a person of good moral character.
b. a complaint against Yao for alleged non-
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and
compliance with the reportorial requirements
acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his
of the SEC with the Office of the City
personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children by
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City:
complainant Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with
c. complaint with the Office of the City
them as shown by the herein attached pictures. Records also
Prosecutor of Malabon City for alleged
show that after his disbarment, respondent returned to his
violation of Sec. 75 (Stockholder’s right to
hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an
financial statements) of the Corporation
orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in
Code; and
2008. In 2009, he was appointed as Private Secretary to the
d. similar complaint before the Office of the City
Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the position
Prosecutor of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.
of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in
5. Yao alleged that the series of suits filed against him
the Assessor’s Office, which office he continues to serve to
and his wife is a form of harassment and constitutes
date. Moreover, he is a part-time instructor at the University of
an abuse of the confidential information which
Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School
respondent obtained by virtue of his employment as
Year 2011-2012. Respondent likewise took an active part in
counsel;
socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who
6. Yao argued that respondent is guilty of representing
are in dire need.
conflicting interests when he filed several suits not
Furthermore, respondent's plea for reinstatement is duly
only against the complainant and the other officers of
supported by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cagayan
the corporation, but also against the two corporations
Chapter‚ and by his former and present colleagues.Ï‚rνl1‚rνl1
of which he is both a stockholder and retained
Records further reveal that respondent has already settled his
counsel.
previous marital squabbles,½l1 as in fact, no opposition to the
instant suit was tendered by complainant Teves. He sends Aurelio’s claim:
regular support½l1 to his children in compliance with the
1. that he handled several labor cases in behalf of Solar
Court's directive in the Decision dated February 27, 2004.cral
Textile;
From the attestations and certifications presented, the Court
2. that the funds used to purchase several parcels of
finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his
land were not the personal funds of Yao but pertain to
transgressions. At 581 years of age, he still has productive
Solar Farms;
years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the
3. that since 1999 he was no longer the counsel for Yao
upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society.
or Solar Textile;
While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and
4. that he never used any confidential information in
even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to
pursuing the criminal cases he filed but only used
show compassion to those who have reformed their ways½l1
those which he obtained by virtue of his being a
as in this case. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered
stockholder;
reinstated to the practice of law. He is, however, reminded
5. that his requests for copies of the financial statements
that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby
were ignored by the Yao and his wife hence he was
adherence. to the rigid standards of intellect, moral
constrained to file criminal complaints for estafa thru
uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law
concealment of documents;
are continuing requirements.
6. that when he was furnished copies of the financial
statements, he discovered that several parcels of land
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S | 10

were not included in the balance sheet of the venues constitutes forum-shopping, as correctly found by the
corporations; investigating commissioner. This highlights his motives rather
7. that the financial statements indicated that the than his cause of action. Respondent took advantage of his
corporations suffered losses when in fact it paid cash being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. In doing
dividends to its stockholders, hence, he filed so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from
additional complaints for falsification of commercial his dealings with complainant and complainant's companies for
documents and violation of reportorial requirements of his own end.
the SEC.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings
IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and
investigating commissioner to suspend Aurelio from the integrity in a manner beyond reproach. Lawyers cannot be
practice of law for 6 months on the ff grounds: allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting
vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any
1. from 1987-1999, respondent had been the personal
person — most especially against a client or former client.
lawyer of the complainant and incorporator and
counsel of Solar Farms; In sum, we find that respondent's actuations amount to a
2. that respondent is guilty of forum shopping when he breach of his duty to uphold good faith and fairness, sufficient
filed identical charges against the complainant before to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon City and
in the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Jose del
Monte, Bulacan;
3. respondent was remiss in his duty as counsel and
incorporator of both corporations for failing to advise
the officers of the corporation, which he was
incidentally a member of the Board of Directors, to
comply with the reportorial requirements of the SEC
and the BIR. Instead, he filed cases against his
clients, thereby representing conflicting interests.

ISSUE: W/N there was abuse of confidence.

RULING: YES.
We find that the professional relationship between the
complainant and the respondent is more extensive than his
protestations that he only handled isolated labor cases for the
complainant's corporations (during investigation: “went to the
office at least half day every week but that was cut short. And
when there are cases that crop-up involving labor then they
called me up”).
Aside from being the brother-in-law of complainant's wife, it
appears that even before the inception of the companies,
respondent was already providing legal services to the
complainant (counsel for other legal matters before
incorporation; charge corporation for professional fees
rendered it). He was also present during the negotiations for
the purchase of the parcel of land and was privy to the fact that
it was purchased by the complainant subject to reimbursement
by the Board and should the corporation finally have sufficient
fund to cover the payment advanced by complainant then the
property will be transferred to the corporation.
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney
and his client is a fiduciary one. Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that
an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made
to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter
consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and
secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship.
The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by
the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining
another, or by any other change of relation between them. It
even survives the death of the client.
Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations, respondent's
act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in different
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S | 11

T1 accused of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted

homicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to
A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006
be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and
promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.
CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, Complainants, vs. ATTY. JAIME
JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent.
Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement
undertaken by the parties. But only because of his sincere
Complainants filed before this Court an affidavit-complaint1 on
effort and in true spirit of the Lawyer’s Oath did he file the
15 August 2003 against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal
Motion for Reconsideration. Though admitting its highly
(respondent) for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, gross
irregular character, respondent also made informal but urgent
misconduct, and gross negligence. Complainants are related to
and personal representation with the members of the Division
petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23 entitled SPO1 Ernest C.
of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated the decision of
Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin
conviction. He asserts that because of all the efforts he put into
v. People of the Philippines, in whose behalf respondent filed
the case of the accused, his other professional obligations
the Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) in the case.
were neglected and that all these were done without proper
and adequate remuneration.
The complaint against respondent originated from his alleged
mishandling of the above-mentioned petition which eventually
As to the ad cautelam petition, respondent maintains that it
led to its denial with finality by this Court to the prejudice of
was filed on time. He stresses that the last day of filing of the
petitioners therein.
petition was on 3 April 2002 and on that very day, he filed with
this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for
The facts are as follows:
Review,7 seeking an additional thirty (30) days to file the
petition. Subsequently, on 3 May 2002, he filed the petition by
On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato
registered mail and paid the corresponding docket fees.
F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin (eventually petitioners in
Hence, so he concludes, it was filed within the reglementary
G.R. No. 152621-23, collectively referred to herein as the
period.
accused) were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in
the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another.
Soon thereafter, respondent recounted all the "herculean"
As a result, Informations were filed against them before the
efforts he made in assisting the accused for almost a year after
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder. The accused
the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision. He
pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. After due trial, the
considered the fact that it was a case he had just inherited from
Sandiganbayan2 found the accused guilty of two counts of
the original counsel; the effect of his handling the case on his
homicide and one count of attempted homicide.
other equally important professional obligations; the lack of
adequate financial consideration for handling the case; and his
At that juncture, complainants engaged the services of herein
plans to travel to the United States to explore further
respondent for the accused. Respondent then filed a Motion for
professional opportunities. He then decided to formally
Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but it was denied in a
withdraw as counsel for the accused. He wrote a letter to PO3
Resolution dated 21 August 2001. Unfazed by the denial,
Rolando Joaquin (PO3 Joaquin), who served as the contact
respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second
person between respondent and complainants, explaining his
Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion
decision to withdraw as their counsel, and attaching the Notice
for Reconsideration.3 Pending resolution by the
to Withdraw which respondent instructed the accused to sign
Sandiganbayan, respondent also filed with this Court a Petition
and file with the Court. He sent the letter through registered
for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) on 3 May 2002.
mail but unfortunately, he could not locate the registry receipt
issued for the letter.
Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again
despite the frequent telephone calls they made to his office.
Respondent states that he has asked the accused that he be
When respondent did not return their phone inquiries,
discharged from the case and endorsed the Notice of
complainants went to respondent’s last known address only to
Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the latter to file with the Court.
find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so, as he was keenly
aware that it would be difficult to find a new counsel who would
More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants
be as equally accommodating as respondent. Respondent
were constrained to personally verify the status of the ad
suggests this might have been the reason for the several calls
cautelam petition as they had neither news from respondent
complainants made to his office.
about the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts. They were
shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a
On 9 February 2004, the Court resolved to refer the matter to
Resolution4 dated 3 July 2002, denying the petition for late
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
filing and non-payment of docket fees.
report and recommendation.1awph!l.net
Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had
The case was assigned to Investigating Commissioner Leland
attained finality and warrants of arrest5 had already been
R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid) who sent notices of
issued against the accused because respondent, whose
hearing to the parties but of the three complainants, only
whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the
complainant Carlos Joaquin appeared. Thus, in the mandatory
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.
conference held, the other two complainants were declared as
having waived their rights to further participate in the IBP
In his Comment,6 respondent states that it is of vital
proceedings.8
significance that the Court notes that he was not the original
counsel of the accused. He only met the accused during the
promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision convicting the
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S | 12

The parties were directed to file their respective position inform the client of the adverse resolution since they had
papers and on 27 May 2005, Commissioner Villadolid constantly called respondent’s office to check the status of the
submitted his Report and Recommendation finding respondent case. Even when he knew that complainants had been calling
guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility9 his office, he opted not to return their calls.
and recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from
reprimand to suspension of six (6) months.1awph!l.net10 On Respondent professed an inkling that the several phone calls
12 November 2005, the Board of Directors of the IBP resolved of complainants may have been about the letter he sent PO3
to adopt and approve Commissioner Villadolid’s Joaquin regarding his desire to be discharged as counsel of
recommendation to find respondent guilty and specifically to the case. However, though aware of such likelihood,
recommend his suspension for six (6) months as penalty. respondent still did not return their calls. Had he done so, he
and complainants could have threshed out all unresolved
The only issue to be resolved in the case at bar is, considering matters between them.
all the facts presented, whether respondent committed gross
negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23, Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for
which eventually led to the ad cautelam petition’s dismissal the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in
with finality. court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of
withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he
After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court should have informed this Court through the appropriate
finds the suspension recommended by the IBP proper. manifestation that he had already given instructions to his
clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of
In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not
the accused, respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of the
in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused.
accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their
right to their life and liberty. As held in Regala v. Certainly, respondent ought to know that he was the one who
Sandiganbayan:11 should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the accused.
His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and
Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are gave them instructions on how to go about respondent’s
rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should have been
those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate, respondent who undertook the appropriate measures for the
exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not have
degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the case.
necessity and public interest x x x . Without the presentation of the alleged registry receipt (or the
return card, which confirms the receipt of the mail by the
It is also the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that recipient) of the letter he allegedly sent to PO3 Joaquin, the
distinguishes him from any other profession in society. x x x12 Court cannot lend credence to respondent’s naked claim,
especially so that complainants have been resolute in their
At the onset, the Court takes notice that the ad cautelam stand that they did not hear from respondent after the latter
petition was actually filed out of time. Though respondent filed had filed the ad cautelam petition. He could relieve himself of
with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for Leave to File his responsibility as counsel only first by securing the written
Second Motion for Reconsideration with the attached Second conformity of the accused and filing it with the court pursuant to
Motion for Reconsideration, he should have known that a Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.15
second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading13
and it rests on the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan to The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right
admit it or not. Thus, in effect, the motion did not toll the to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or
reglementary period to appeal. Having failed to do so, the without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate
accused had already lost their right to appeal long before the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
respondent filed his motion for extension. Therefore, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics
respondent cannot now say he filed the ad cautelam petition on is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an
time. Also important to note is the allegation of complainants action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not
that the Sandiganbayan denied the second motion for at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s
reconsideration in its Resolution dated 7 February 2002. This right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises
respondent does not dispute. only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause.16

As to respondent’s conduct in dealing with the accused and We agree with Commissioner Villadolid that the dismissal of
complainants, he definitely fell short of the high standard of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross
assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard the negligence of respondent. The Court has stressed in Aromin v.
rights of his clients. As aptly observed by Commissioner Boncavil17 that:
Villadolid, respondent had not been quite candid in his dealings
with the accused or complainants. The Court notes that though Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer
respondent represented to the accused that he had changed owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
his office address, still, from the examination of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client
pleadings14 he filed, it can be gleaned that all of the pleadings with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s
have the same mailing address as that known to complainants. cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise
Presumably, at some point, respondent’s office would have stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,
received the Court’s Resolution dismissing the petition. Of warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
course, the prudent step to take in that situation was to at least rights, and the exertion of the his utmost learning and ability to
 PALE 3E/3D: R-T C A S E S | 13

the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save recommended by Commissioner Villadolid, but did not explain
by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his why such penalty was justified. In a fairly recent case where
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and the lawyer failed to file an appeal brief which resulted to the
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may dismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court of Appeals, the
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If Court imposed upon the erring lawyer the penalty of three (3)
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the months’ suspension.25 The Court finds it fit to impose the
entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative same in the case at bar.
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.18

Respondent has time and again stated that he did all the
endeavors he enumerated without adequate or proper
remuneration. However, complainants have sufficiently
disputed such claim when they attached in their position paper
filed before the IBP a machine validated deposit slip in the
amount of P15,500.00 for the Metro Bank savings account of
one Jaime Portugal with account number 7186509273.19
Respondent has neither admitted nor denied having claimed
the deposited amount.

The Court also rejects respondent’s claim that there was no

formal engagement between the parties and that he made all
his efforts for the case without adequate and proper
consideration. In the words of then Justice Panganiban
(presently Chief Justice) in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta:20

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes

fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid
any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a
business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not
money, is the primary consideration.21

Also to the point is another case where this Court ruled, thus:

A written contract is not an essential element in the

employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession. x x x 22

Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case

he undertook to defend, his obligation embodied in the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility still
remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of fervor in
handling the case should neither diminish nor cease just
because of his perceived insufficiency of remuneration.

Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation

respondent called the shooting incident that the accused was
engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the accused
police officers who had been convicted of [h]omicide for the
‘salvage’ of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and
[a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C. Macato."23 Rule 14.0124 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers
not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the
latter. It is ironic that it is the defense counsel that actually
branded his own clients as being the culprits that "salvaged"
the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is
unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the
Sandiganbayan had not done so.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of

respondent for six (6) months, the most severe penalty