B.

Employment of Honorable Means

RBCI Bohol v. James Florido (June 18, 2010)

Facts:
1. On 18 April 2002, a complaint for disbarment was
filed by the members of the Board of Directors of the
Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against
respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido for violating
his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
2. According to RBCI, on 1 April 2002, respondent and
his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr.
Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos,
and Felix Rengel, through force and intimidation,
with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the
management and the premises of RBCI. They also
forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank
manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and
installed their own staf to run the bank.
3. 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.
- That he was merely efecting a lawful and valid
change of management.
- That a termination notice was sent to Garay but
he refused to comply.
On 1 April 2002, to ensure a smooth transition of
managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno Relampagos group went to the
bank to ask Garay
to step down. However, Garay reacted violently
and grappled with the security guard’s long
firearm.
Respondent then directed the security guards to
prevent entry into the bank premises of
individuals who had no transaction with the
bank.
Respondent, through the orders of the NazarenoRelampagos group, also changed
the locks of the
bank’s vault.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for
malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was
already dismissed; while the complaint for grave
coercion was ordered suspended because of the
existence of a prejudicial question.
Respondent said that the disbarment complaint
was filed against him in retaliation for the
administrative cases he filed against RBCI’s
counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol.

Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any

evidence to prove their allegations. Respondent added that
the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified,
affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and that none of the
documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies.

4. IBP Commissioner Villadolid submitted his report declared

that respondent failed to live up to the exacting
standards expected of him as vanguard of law and
justice. He recommended the imposition on respondent of a
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six
months to one year with a warning that the repetition of
similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe
penalty.
According to IBP Commissioner, respondent knew or
ought to have known that his clients could not just
forcibly take over the management and premises of
RBCI without a valid court order. And noted that the right
to manage and gain majority control over RBCI was one of the
issues pending before the trial court in Civil Case No. 6628.
Respondent had no legal basis to implement the take over of
RBCI and that it was a “naked power grab without any
semblance of legality whatsoever.”
IBP Commissioner added that the administrative complaint
against respondent before the IBP is independent of
the dismissal and suspension of the criminal cases
against respondent.

5. IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVII2006-120 which declared that
respondent dismally
failed to live up to the exacting standards of the
law profession and suspended respondent from
the practice of law for one year with a warning
that repetition of similar conduct will warrant a
more severe penalty. Hence the petition.

Issue: Whether respondent is liable. YES

Ruling: 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. It is his duty to counsel his clients to
use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking
justice and refrain from doing an intentional
wrong to their adversaries.
Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice
and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they
become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily,
when they appear before a tribunal, they act not
merely as representatives of a party but, first and

foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to

protect their clients’ interests is secondary to their
obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. While they are obliged to
present every available legal remedy or defense, their
fidelity to their clients must always be made within the
parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of
truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice.
A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. To that end, his client’s
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and
honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even
in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s
cause, is condemnable and unethical.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido is GUILTY of
violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he’s SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the Decision.
C. Protecting Client’s Interest

Santiago v. Fojas (1995)

Same; same; same

RULING:
The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client,
the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. This means that his client is entitled
to the benefit of any and 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. In his motion for reconsideration of the default
order, the respondent explained his non-filing of
the required answer by impliedly invoking
forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and
pressure of legal work, while in his Comment in
this case he attributes it to honest mistake and
excusable neglect due to his overzealousness to
question the denial order of the trial court.
Whether it is the first or the second ground, the fact
remains that the respondent did not comply with
his duty to file an answer.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide
no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his
duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts
deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether
he accepts it for a fee or for free.

Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility which requires him
to serve his clients, the complainants herein,
with diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03
thereof which provides: “A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.”
Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not excused by his
claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a
“losing cause”. The Supreme Court held that he
should have seasonably informed the complainants
thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A
lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid
and honest opinion on the merits and probable results
of the client’s case, neither overstating nor
understanding the prospects of the case.
ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and
ADMONISHED.

RAMONA L. VDA. DE ALISBO and NORBERTO

S. ALISBO vs. ATTY. BENITO JALANDOON, SR.
(1991)

Facts:
• A verified complaint for disbarment was filed with
then Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile
on January 2, 1974, by Ramona L. Vda. de Alisbo and
Norberto S. Alisbo against their former counsel,
Attorney Benito Jalandoon, Sr., charging him with
deceit, malpractice, and professional infidelity.
The facts of the case, as found by the Solicitor General,
are the following:
• On March 16, 1970, Ramon Alisbo engaged
respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon, Sr., as his
counsel because Alisbo failed to file a motion for
execution of a judgment in his favor within the
reglementary five-year period (Sec. 6, Rule, 39, Rules
of Court). The judgment was for the recovery of his
share on the estate of the deceased spouses Catalina
Sales and Restituto Gozuma which had been
adjudicated to him by Court of First Instance of Negros
Oriental.
• On April 18, 1970, Atty. Jalandoon prepared a
complaint for revival of the judgment in Civil Case but

The respondent filed a general denial of the charges

against him. According to him to Attorney , it was only
on October 6, 1972, when Civil Case No. 9559 was
called for pre-trial, that he discovered his previous
professional relationship with Sales. At that time, the
ten-year prescriptive period for revival of the judgment
in favor of Alisbo had already expired. He thereupon
asked Alisbo's permission to allow him (Jalandoon) to
withdraw from the case. He also informed the court
about his untenable position and requested that he be
allowed to retire therefrom. His request was granted.
The Solicitor General who investigated the matter
made the following observations:
Evident from the foregoing is the fact that in handling
the case for Ramon S. Alisbo which eventually led to its
dismissal, respondent committed several errors,
among which are:
1. He did not verify the real status of Ramon
Alisbo before filing the case. Otherwise, his lack of
capacity to sue would not have been at issue.

2. He postponed the motion to revive judgment

and gave way instead to a motion to resolve pending
incidents in Civil Case 4963. In doing so, he frittered
away precious time.

3. He dropped Ramon Alisbo's co-plaintiffs and

impleaded them as defendants. Otherwise, the
complaint would have been defective only in part.

Issue: Whether Atty. Jalandoon be held responsible for the dismissal of the case and
had betrayed his client’s trust. Yes.

Ruling: Attorney Jalandoon, betrayed his client Ramon

Alisbo's trust and did not champion his cause with that
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that a lawyer
is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from
a client. There is more than simple negligence resulting
in the extinguishment and loss of his client's right of
action; there is a hint of duplicity and lack of candor in
his dealings with his client, which call for the exercise
of this Court's disciplinary power have overlooked his own participation in that case
as counsel for Carlito Sales, et al.

3.To prepare the complaint for revival of

judgment (Civil Case No. 9559), he had to inform
himself about the personal circumstances of the
defendants-Carlito Sales, et al. The fact that they had
been his clients could not have eluded him.

After filing the complaint, Attorney Jalandoon sat on

the case. While he allegedly found out about Ramon
Alisbo's insanity on July 17, 1971 only, he amended the
complaint to implead Alisbo's legal guardian as plaintiff
on December 8, 1971 only, or almost five (5) months
later. By that time the prescriptive period had run out.
In view of his former association with the Saleses,
Attorney Jalandoon, as a dutiful lawyer, should have
declined the employment proffered by Alisbo on the
ground of conflict of interest. Had he done that soon
enough, the Alisbos (herein complainants) would have
had enough time to engage the services of another
lawyer and they would not have lost their case through
prescription of the action.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting
interests, except by express consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one
client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to
another client requires him to oppose.
The Court, after due deliberation, decided to suspend
him for a period of two (2) years from the finality of this
decision. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attorney Jalandoon's pretense that he did not know

before the pre-trial that the Sales defendants had been
his clients in the past, is unbelievable because:
1. Before he filed the complaint for revival of
judgment, he had had several interviews with Ramon
S. Alisbo and Norberto Alisbo regarding Civil Case No.
4963.
2. He must have done some research on the
court records of Civil Case No. 4963, so he could not filed it only on September 12,
1970 on five (5) months
later. The complaint was signed by respondent alone.
• However, he withdrew it and filed a second
complaint, with Ramon S. Alisbo as the lone plaintiff,
praying for the same relief.
• On December 8, 1971, an amended complaint was
filed were: Ramon S. Alisbo, assisted by his judicial
guardian, Norberto S. Alisbo, and joined with eight (8)
others. The amended complaint was signed by
Attorney Bernardo B. Pablo alone as counsel of the
plaintiffs.
• On August 21, 1973, defendant Carlito Sales filed a
Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
action for revival of judgment in Civil Case had already
prescribed.
• On October 3, 1973, the CFI of Negros Occidental
dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription
as the judgment in Civil Case No. 4963 became final on
May 30, 1961.
• On January 2, 1974, the complainants charged
respondent Attorney Benito Jalandoon, Sr. with having
deliberately caused the dismissal of Civil Case with
having concealed from them the material fact that he
had been the former legal counsel of Carlito Sales,
their adversary in the probate proceedings.

ALFONSOVISITACION vs. VICTOR

MANIT, substituted by his widow LEONARDA MANIT and
daughters VIRGINIA DUNGOG,
VICTORIA BATUCAN and MERLINDA MANIT (1969)

Facts:
The case originated on January 18, 1956 when Alfonso
Visitacion filed a case against Victor Manit to hold him liable subsidiarily as employer
for the death of Visitacion’s son, Delano Visitacion, as a result of
injuries sustained in a vehicular collision involving
Manit’s driver Rudolfo Giron, who was found insolvent
after having been convicted and sentenced in a
previous criminal case arising out of said death, to
indemnify the victim's heirs in the amount of P3, 000.00.
Atty. Garcia filed an Answer to the complaint on behalf
of defendant. On June 1, 1956, the case was heard, without
defendant or his counsel being present, and plaintiff
presented his evidence and the case, was submitted
for decision.
On June 6, 1956, defendant, however, filed a motion for
new trial which was granted by the trial court on June
9, 1956. Atty. Garcia presented defendant's wife, Leonarda
Manit who testified that her husband, Victor Manit "had
no business of his own, because he is sickly" and that
she was the one operating and managing their
transportation business of three trucks.
On October 14, 1958, when the case was scheduled for
continuation of the trial, Atty. Garcia manifested
that the original defendant, Victor Manit had
recently died, and the trial court on the same
date directed him to furnish plaintif's counsel
the names of the said defendant's heirs, so that
plaintif could amend the complaint accordingly.
On August 11, 1959, Visitacion’s counsel submitted
a Motion to Admit the Amended Complaint,
furnishing copy of said pleadings to Atty. Garcia, who
acknowledged receipt thereof as "Attorney for the
defendant."
The only amendment in the complaint consisted in
impleading the widow and heirs of the deceased
original defendant in substitution for him,
pursuant to Rule 3, section 17 of the Rules of Court.
There was no opposition by Atty. Garcia, so the
trial court admitted the Amended Complaint in
its Order and counsel for the defendants, defendants
were fifteen (15) days' time within which to file an
answer to said amended complaint.
No answer to the amended complaint having
been filed.
The case was again set for hearing with notice to the
parties through their counsels of record.
One day before the hearing, Atty. Garcia filed a
"Motion to Withdraw as Counsel", alleging that
"the heirs of Victor Manit have not hired (him) to represent them and consequently,
(his) continued appearance in representation of a dead client would be
illegal" and asking the trial court "that he be relieved
as counsel. When the case was called on the next day, neither
defendants nor Atty. Garcia appeared, and the
trial court noting "defendants' apparent lack of interest
as can be gleaned from the records" considered
them to have renounced their right to appear
and present evidence to contest plaintif's claim.
The trial court did not pass upon Atty. Garcia's
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and proceeded to
render judgment in favor of plaintif and
sentenced the defendants, jointly and severally,
to pay the plaintif the amount of P3,000.00 as
indemnity for the death of Delano Visitacion, plus
P3,000.00 in concept of moral damages, and the
additional sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well
as the costs of the action. Atty. Garcia filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it
was denied by the trial court, Hence the petition.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN

IGNORING THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL FILED BY ATTY. GARCIA. NO.

Ruling:
In the face of Atty. Garcia's previous representations
and appearance as counsel of record for the
substituted defendants, his last hour motion to
withdraw as counsel and disclaimer that said
defendants have hired him to represent them —
which he filed one day before the date set for
resumption of the hearing — came too late and
was properly ignored by the Court.
The Court could not accept this turn-about on his mere
"say-so." His motion was not verified. His motion
was likewise fatally defective in that it carried no
notice to his clients on record, the defendants appellants, as required by Rule 138,
section 26 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, it is well settled that "(A)n attorney
seeking to withdraw must make an application to
the court, for the relation does not terminate
formally until there is a withdrawal of record; at
least so far as the opposite party is concerned,
the relation otherwise continues until the end of
the litigation."
Atty. Garcia's unexplained failure to appear was
inexcusable. He had no right to presume that the
Court would grant his withdrawal. If he had then
appeared and insisted on his withdrawal, the
trial court could then have had the opportunity
to order the appearance of defendants- appellants and verify from them the truth of
his assertion that they had not "hired him to
represent them."
Having failed to appear on the day set for trial without
any justifiable explanation to the Court nor having
presented an affidavit of merits as to the existence of
valid and lawful defenses, they cannot now complain of
having been deprived of their day in Court.

The circumstances of the case and the appeal taken all

together lead to the conclusion that the last-hour
withdrawal application of Atty. Garcia and his
appeal "as officer of the Court and then counsel
of the deceased" was but a device to prolong this
case and delay in the execution of the judgment,
which should have been carried out years ago.
The imposition of double costs is therefore in
order.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with double costs to be paid by the attorney
for defendants. So ordered.
PEOPLE vs NADERA
FACTS:
The accused was charged for raping his two
daughters. He pleaded guilty. Atty. Brotonel, as
counsel de oficio (PAO) of the accused did not crossexamine the first daughter
because he was convinced that she was telling the truth. The cross examination
of the second daughter centered on what she did when
she saw her sister being raped. Atty. Brotonel also did
not present any evidence, and expressed his
conformity for the admission of the evidence of the
prosecution.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Brotonel failed to fulfill the standard

duty required by him as counsel de oficio of his client.
HELD: The case should be remanded because of the neglect of the lawyer of the
accused in representing his cause. While an accused may be given a counsel de
oficio which is not a lawyer of his own choice because he could not afford the
services of a de parte lawyer, only the faithful performance by counsel of his duty
towards his client can give meaning and substance to the accused’s right
to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Hence, a
lawyer’s duty, especially that of a defense counsel, must not be taken lightly. It must
be performed with all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the
accused’s fundamental rights. The cavalier attitude of Atty. Manolo Brotonel of the
PAO cannot go unnoticed. It is discernible in [a] his refusal to cross-examine
Oleby Nadera (the complainant for RAPE); [b] the manner in which he
conducted Maricris Nadera’s cross-examination; and [c] his failure not only to
present evidence for the accused but to inform the accused ofhis right to do so, if he
desires. The duty to make the accused’s right to counsel meaningful and
its enjoyment effective rests largely on the defense counsel. While a lawyer
may, in accordance with the canons of the profession and his duty to aid in the
administration of justice, properly decline to handle a civil suit when he is convinced
that it is intended to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression or
wrong, an attorney for the defense in a criminal action, whether as counsel
departe or counsel de oficio, has the right and the duty to render effective legal
assistance to the accused, I rrespective of his personal opinion as to the guilt of
his client. It is only by performing his duties faithfully and well will the right to counsel
becomes meaningful. TheCourt held: “The right to counsel must be more
than just the presence of a lawyer in a courtroom or there propounding
of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the
accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits
himself to the cause of the defense an acts accordingly. The right assumes an active
involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his
bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed
on the case and his knowing the fundamental procures, essential laws and existing
jurisprudence. The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the
performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client. Tersely put, it
means an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simply perfunctory
representation.”

A.C. No. 11113, August 09, 2016 - CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, Complainant, v.

ATTY.ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY.
ANGELESGRANDEA, OF THE ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE,
Respondent.

FACTS
: In May 2004, complainant engaged the law firm of respondents to handle the
annulment of his marriage. From then on, he constantly followed-up its progress but
respondents were unable to produce a petition , with various excuses including that
there was no record of marriage. Utterly frustrated with the delay, complainant
decided to terminate their engagement and demanded for a refund of the amount he
paid. To the complainant's surprise, they responded by sending two (2) billings
statements in the amounts of P258,000.00 and P324,000.00. Thus, he filed a
complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR.
HELD. Yes. Despite the passage of more than five (5) months from the engagement,
respondents failed to file the appropriate pleading to initiate the case before the
proper court. Such neglect of the legal matter entrusted to them by their client
constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:
CANON18-A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE. Rule18.03 -A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable