Canon 4 and 5

ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN, JR. VS. ATTY. RIZALINO SIMBILLO, AC no. 5299,
8-19-2003

Facts:

Maximino alleged that on August 18, 2010, Orlando, a lawyer, filed a

complaint[2] for damages against his own brother, Marcelo O. Ailes, Jr.
(Marcelo), whom Maximino represented, together with other defendants,
therein. In the said complaint, Orlando stated the following data: "IBP-774058-
12/07/09-QC x x x MCLE Compliance No. II-0008689[3]/Issued on March 10,
2008." Maximino claimed that at the time of the filing of the said complaint,
Orlando's IBP O.R. number should have already reflected payment of his IBP
annual dues for the year 2010, not 2009, and that he should have finished his
third Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance, not just the
second.

Sometime in December 2011, Maximino learned from Marcelo that the latter had
filed a separate case for grave threats and estafa against Orlando. When
Maximino was furnished a copy of the complaint, he discovered that, through
text messages,Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from
retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he was incompetent and that he
charged exorbitant fees, saying, among others: " Better dismiss your hi-track
lawyer who will impoverish you with his unconscionable [professional] fee. Max
Noble, as shown in court records, never appeared even once, that's why you lost
in the pre-trial stage, get rid of Noble as your lawyer. He is out to squeeze a lot
of money from you, daig mo nga mismong abogado mong polpol.

Records show that Orlando even prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of

Counsel in the complaint for damages, which stated that Maximino "has never
done anything to protect the interests of the defendants in a manner not
befitting his representation as a seasoned law practitioner and, aside from
charging enormous amount of professional fees and questionable expenses, said
counsel's contracted services reached as far only in preparing and filing uncalled
for motions to dismiss x" as well as a Compromise Agreement, both of which he
sent to Marcelo for his signature. Affronted, Maximino filed the instant complaint
charging Orlando with violation of Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), Bar Matter (BM) Nos. 850 and
1922, and prayed for the disbarment of respondent as well as the award of
damages.

Orlando, considering that the communication between Orlando and Marcelo,

who are brothers, was done privately and not directly addressed to Maximino
nor intended to be published and known by third person

Issue:

whether or not the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Orlando

Ruling:

Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be

dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the
judicial forum. In Buatis Jr. v. People, the Court treated a lawyer's use of the
words "lousy," "inutile," "carabao English," "stupidity," and "satan" in a letter
addressed to another colleague as defamatory and injurious which effectively
maligned his integrity. Similarly, the hurling of insulting language to describe the
opposing counsel is considered conduct unbecoming of the legal profession.[

In this case, the IBP found the text messages that Orlando sent to his brother
Marcelo as casual communications considering that they were conveyed
privately. To the Court's mind, however, the tenor of the messages cannot be
treated lightly. The text messages were clearly intended to malign and annoy
Maximino, as evident from the use of the word "polpol" (stupid). Likewise,
Orlando's insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the services of
Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive conduct against his colleague, in violation
of the above-quoted rules. Moreover, Orlando's voluntary plea of guilty to the
crime of unjust vexation in the criminal case filed against him by Marcelo was,
for all intents and purposes, an admission that he spoke ill, insulted, and
disrespected Maximino - a departure from the judicial decorum which exposes
the lawyer to administrative liability.
On this score, it must be emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions such that a lawyer's words and actions directly affect
the public's opinion of the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe
such conduct of nobility and uprightness which should remain with them,
whether in their public or private lives, and may be disciplined in the event their
conduct falls short of the standards imposed upon them. Thus, in this case, it is
inconsequential that the statements were merely relayed to Orlando's brother in
private. As a member of the bar, Orlando should have been more circumspect in
his words, being fully aware that they pertain to another lawyer to whom
fairness as well as candor is owed. It was highly improper for Orlando to
interfere and insult Maximino to his client.

Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in

this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. The Court has consistently reminded the members of the bar to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor and reputation of a party.

Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando transgressed the

CPR when he maligned Maximino to his client.

With regard to Orlando's alleged violation of BM No. 1922, the Court agrees with
the IBP that his failure to disclose the required information for MCLE compliance
in the complaint for damages he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a
ground for disbarment. At most, hisviolation shall only be cause for the dismissal
of the complaint as well as the expunction thereof from the records.

The Supreme Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O. Ailes GUILTY of violating
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing
with his professional colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Canon 6
DAN JOEL V. LIM VS. ATTY. EDILBERTO BARCELONA, AC no. 5438, 3-
10-200

Facts:

Respondent who was the chief of the NLRC-Public Assistance Center purportedly
demanded money from Complainants to in settlement of labor cases purportedly
filed by their employees and even threatened to close their businesses and put
them in jail if they refused to settle.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Barcelona is guilty of corrupt activity, deceit and gross
misconduct?

Ruling:

Yes.

The Supreme Court disbarred Respondent reasoning that, if a lawyer’s

misconduct in the discharge of official duties as a government official is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency,
he may be disciplined as a Bar member on such ground. Lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers
in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in
a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
Canon 17

DAN JOEL V. LIM VS. ATTY. EDILBERTO BARCELONA, AC no. 5438, 3-

10-200

Facts:

In October 1973, Salandanan became a stockholder of Paces, and later became

its Director, Treasurer, Administrative Officer, Vice-President for Finance, then its
counsel. As lawyer for Paces, he appeared for it in several cases. On December
4, 1973, E.E. Black Ltd., through its counsel, sent a letter to Paces regarding the
latter's outstanding obligation to it. In the negotiations that transpired
thereafter, Salandanan was the one who represented Paces. Meanwhile,
disagreements on various management policies ensued among the stockholders
and officers in the corporation. Eventually, Salandanan and his group were
forced to sell out their shareholdings. After said sell-out, Salandanan started
handling the case between E.E. Black Ltd. and Paces, but now, representing E.E.
Black Ltd. Salandanan then filed a complaint with application for preliminary
attachment against Paces for the collection of its obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. He
later succeeded in obtaining an order of attachment, writ of attachment, and
notices of garnishment. Thus, Paces filed a complaint against Salandanan. It
argued that when he acted as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., he represented
conflicting interests and utilized, to the full extent, all the information he had
acquired as its stockholder, officer, and lawyer. On the other hand, Salandanan
claimed that he was never employed nor paid as a counsel by Paces. There was
no client-lawyer contract between them.

Issue:

WON Atty. Salandanan was guilty of representing conflict of interest

Ruling:

YES, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility (CPR) provide: CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS. Under the aforecited rules, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any
manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally
unrelated cases. Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is:
1.) whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.

2.) if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an
act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.

3. ) Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a

new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
doubledealing in the performance of said duty. The prohibition is founded on the
principles of public policy and good taste. Even the termination of the attorney-
client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or
in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the
client's confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of
the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer
should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter
in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer
disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation.

Canon 18
AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA, Complainants, -versus- ATTY.
BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN, Respondent. A.C. No. 7965, SECOND
DIVISION, November 13, 2013

Facts:

The parties entered into a retainership agreementwhereby respondent

undertook to, inter alia process the registration and eventually deliver, within a
period of six (6) months, the certificate of title over a certain parcel of land in
favor of complainant acting as the representative of the heirs of the late Isabel
Segovia. Complainant alleged that respondent, without proper explanation, failed
to fulfill his undertaking to register the subject land and deliver to complainant
the certificate of title over the same. As complainant was tired of respondent’s
excuses, she finally decided to just withdraw the subject amount from
respondent. For such purpose, she confronted the latter at his office and also
subsequently sent him two (2) demand letters, but all to no avail. Respondent
admitted that he indeed received the subject amount from complainant but
averred that after receiving the same, the latter’s brother, Erlindo, asked to be
reimbursed the amount of ₱7,500.00 which the latter purportedly paid to the
land surveyor. Respondent likewise alleged that he later found out that he could
not perform his undertaking under the retainer because the ownership of the
subject land was still under litigation. Finally, respondent stated that he wanted
to return the balance of the subject amount to complainant after deducting what
Erlindo took from him, but was only prevented to do so because he was
maligned by complainant when she went to his office and there, shouted and
called him names in the presence of his staff. The IBP found respondent to have
violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) for his failure to properly account for the money entrusted
to him without any adequate explanation why he could not return the same. The
Investigating Commissioner found that respondent’s acts demonstrated his lack
of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client, who entrusted him with money and
documents for the registration of the subject land. Respondent’s failure to return
the subject amount, despite being given adequate time to return the same, not
to mention the repeated demands made upon him, constitutes gross dishonesty,
grave misconduct, and even misappropriation of money in violation of the
above-stated rules. In view of the foregoing, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar offenses in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Issue:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating

Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code.

Ruling:

YES

The Court agrees with the IBP that respondent’s failure to properly account for
and duly return his client’s money despite due demand is tantamount to a
violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code. With the fact of
receipt being established, it was then respondent’s obligation to return the
money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state that
complainant’s purported act of "maligning" respondent does not justify the
latter’s failure to properly account for and return his client’s money upon due
demand. Verily, a lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially imbued with trust
so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable
efforts towards its faithful compliance. After a judicious scrutiny of the records,
the Court observes that respondent did not only accomplish his undertaking
under the retainer, but likewise failed to give an adequate explanation for such
non-performance despite the protracted length of time given for him to do so.
As such omissions equally showcase respondent’s noncompliance with the
standard of proficiency required of a lawyer as embodied in the above-cited
rules, the Court deems it apt to extend the period of his suspension from the
practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year similar to the penalty
imposed in the case of Del Mundo v. Capistrano.

Canon 20

EUGENIO E. CORTEZ v. ATTY. HERNANDO P. CORTES March

12, 2018 A.C. No. 9119
FACTS:

Eugenio E. Cortez engaged the services of Atty. Cortes as his counsel in an

illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC). He further
alleged that he and Atty. Cortes had a handshake agreement on a 12%
contingency fee as and by way of attorney’s fees.

The case was decided in favor of complainant. PEC was ordered to pay
complainant the total amount of One million One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱1,
100,000) in three staggered payments. PEC then issued checks all payable in the
name of complainant, as payment.

Atty. Cortes however, claimed that 50% of the total awarded claims belongs to
him as attorney’s fees.

Complainant then offered to pay ₱200,000, and when Atty. Cortes rejected it, he
offered the third check amounting to ₱275,000, but Atty. Cortes still insisted on
the 50% of the total award.

A complaint was filed by Eugenio against respondent Atty. Cortes for grave
misconduct, and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code for Professional
Responsibility.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the six-month suspension

of Atty. Cortes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts complained of constitute misconduct on the part of Atty.
Cortes, which would subject him to disciplinary action.
RULING:

We rule in the affirmative.

We have held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It is

generally recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in, an express
contract.

The case of Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez discussed the same succinctly, thus:

A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally

recognized as valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract.
The amount of contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to the
stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal services only if the suit or
litigation prospers.

In this case, We note that the parties did not have an express contract as
regards the payment of fees. Complainant alleges that the contingency fee was
fixed at 12% via a handshake agreement, while Atty. Cortes counters that the
agreement was 50%.

The IBP Commission on Discipline pointed out that since what respondent
handled was merely a labor case, his attorney’s foes should not exceed 10%,
the rate allowed under Article 111 of the Labor Code.

Although we agree that the 50% contingency fee was excessive, We do not
agree that the 10% limitation as provided in Article 111 is automatically
applicable.

Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the retainer
Agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation.
In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis of
quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorney’s services. Courts
may ascertain also if the attorney’s fees are found to be excessive, what is
reasonable under the circumstances.

In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is

reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall

charge only fair and reasonable fees.” Rule 20.01 of the same canon enumerates
the following factors which should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:

(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the

proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP Chapter to which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;

(h) The contingency or’ certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j)The professional standing of the lawyer.

We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed by Atty. Cortes
was, under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and
unconscionable.

Respondent Atty. Hernando P. Cortes is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 20

of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) months, (considering that Atty. Cortes is nearing
ninety years old and that there was no question that Atty. Cortes was able to get
a favorable outcome) and is ordered to return to complainant Eugenio E. Cortez
the amount he received in excess of the 12% allowable attorney’s fees.

Canon 22

MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL, complainant, vs. ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA,

respondent. 1`A.C. No. 9925, THIRD DIVISION, September 17, 2014

Facts:

Complainant, Cristobal, engaged the services of Renta Pe & Associates Law

Office for the filing of a "petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell
Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration.
Respondent as the managing partner signed the "Special Contract of Legal
Services" in behalf of said law office. Respondent also received from complainant
the "full and package price" of P160,000 for the filing of the petition for
recognition. No such petition, however, was filed. Thus, the instant complaint for
disbarment was filed against respondent for the latter's failure to file the petition
for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand.
Issue:

Whether or not respondent Pe is liable for violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility

Ruling:

Yes.

Under the established facts, the Court found that respondent violated Canon 18,
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 18 reads: a lawyer
shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Under Rule 18.03 — A
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court held that once a lawyer
agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with
competence and diligence. Here, it is beyond doubt that respondent breached
his duty to serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him. He himself admits that the petition for recognition was not
filed, seeks forgiveness from the Court and promises not to repeat his mistake.
Complainant also submitted official letters from the Bureau of Immigration that
indeed no such petition was filed. That a certain Anneth Tan supposedly lost the
petition for recognition and failed to inform respondent cannot absolve him of
liability for it was his duty not to neglect complainant's case and handle it with
diligence. However, the Court notes that while respondent failed to refund
immediately the amount paid by complainant, he nevertheless exerted earnest
efforts that he eventually was able to fully repay complainant and begged
complainant's forgiveness. Hence, he was only reprimanded with a stern
warning that the same violation would be reprimanded more severely next time.