14-16 case digests

CANON 14

MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO,

JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS
M. JOAQUIN, vs

A.C. No. 6155

March 14, 2006

ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P.

PORTUGAL,
Respondent
Complainants in this case are the relatives of the petitioners (police officers) in a criminal
case that was handled by respondent Atty. Portugal. In said criminal case, petitioners
were found guilty of homicide. They engaged the services of Atty Portugal who appealed
and petitioned on their behalf. Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent
again. Upon personal follow up with the Sandiganbayan, petitioners learned the Court
had already issued a resolution denying the petition with finality.
In his Comment, respondent stated that he was not the original counsel of the accused but
was merely requested to assist. He also claims that there was no formal engagement
undertaken by the parties and that he did write a letter to one of the petitioners informing
him of his decision to formally withdraw as their counsel.
IBPs investigation concluded that respondent mishandled the criminal case and is guilty
of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent
be suspended for 6 months. IBP Board of Directors resolved to adopt and approve the
recommendation
ISSUE: whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling

the criminal case which eventually led to the petitions dismissal with finality
HELD: YES. Respondent fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a

counsel must perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. When a lawyer agrees to take up
the cause of the client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the
latters cause with fidelity.

The Court also did not appreciate the way respondent stated the details of the
offense when he branded his own clients as being the culprits that salvaged the victims.
Rule 14.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to
discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. Though he might think of
his clients as guilty, still it is unprofessional to label them as such when even the cOURT
had not done so.
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three months.

PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

MAXIMO B. USITA, JR. and
WILFREDO C. ANDRES,

G.R. Nos. 154297-300

Petitioners,

THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN,

SPECIAL DIVISION,

February 15, 2008

Respondent
FACTS: Petitioners are PAO lawyers who were appointed as lawyers of Joseph
Estrada and Jose Estrada. They filed a Motion To Be Relieved As Court-Appointed

Counsels with the Sandiganbayan on the ground that the accused are not indigents and
are therefore not qualified to avail of the services of PAO. The motion was denied.
Instead the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution retaining the two PAO lawyers. Hence this
petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
PAO argues that the only exception when it can appear on behalf of a non-indigent
client is when there is no available lawyer to assist such client in a particular stage of the
case. PAO asserts that while its lawyers are also aware of their duties under Rule 14.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility PAO lawyers are limited by their mandate as
government lawyers.

Respondent Sandiganbayan explained that it was facing a crisis when the accused
relieved the services of their counsel and were adamant of hiring new ones. The
Sandiganbayan had the duty to decide the cases, but could not proceed with the trial since
the accused wAS not assisted by counsel. BOUND by its duty to protect the
constitutional right of the accused, Sandiganbayan had to retain the two PAO lawyers.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in retaining two PAO lawyers to act as counsels de
oficio for the accused who are not indigent persons.
HELD: The Court holds that respondent did not gravely abuse its discretion in
issuing the subject Resolutions retaining the PAO lawyers as the issuance is not
characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. The accused did not want to avail themselves of
any counsel; hence, respondent exercised a judgment call to protect the constitutional
right of the accused to be heard by themselves and counsel during the trial of the
cases. In any event, since these cases of the accused in the Sandiganbayan have been
finally resolved, this petition seeking that PAO, the only remaining petitioner, be relieved
as counsel de oficio therein has become moot.

[A.C. No. 4724. April 30, 2003]GORETTI ONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOEL
M. GRIJALDO, respondent
In 1996, complainant Goretti Ong engaged the services of respondent Atty Joel
Grijaldo as private prosecutor for a criminal case against Lemuel Sembrano and
Arlen VILLAMIL for violation of BP Blg 22. The accused offered to settle the case by
paying Ong P180,000 in cash. However, after the hearing, Atty Grijaldo handed to
Ong cash amounting to 100,000 and a check worth 80,000. Complainant objected to
the check payment but respondent assured that the check was drawn by counsel for
the accused, a reputable lawyer. However, upon presentment on its maturity date,
the check was dishonored.
Complainant later learned that her case was already dismissed by reason of
respondents submission of her affidavit of desistance without her consent. He also
admitted that he had already received the amount of P80,000.00 but he used the
same to pay for his financial obligations. This led complainant to file a complaint for
disbarment.

Respondent was required to file his comment but he failed to do so. Later, the
IBP recommended for his disbarment.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for for dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and grossly unethical behavior

HELD: YES. It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence
reposed in him by his client. Respondent breached his duty to his client when he
failed to inform complainant of the status of the criminal case. Respondents failure
to look after his clients welfare in the case was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty
and a breach of the trust and confident which was reposed in him.
alawyerisnotobligedtoactascounselforeverypersonWHOMAYwishtobecome
hisclient.He has therighttodeclineemploymentsubjecthowever, totheprovisionof
Canon14oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Onceheagreestotakeupthecauseof
a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidencereposedtohim.
All told, respondents transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to
grave misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not only to
complainant, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, He was disbarred
from the practice of law.

[A.C. No. 5948. January 22, 2003]

GAMALIEL
ABAQUETA, complainant, vs.
FLORIDO, respondent.

ATTY.

BERNARDITO

A.

Complainant Gamaliel Abaqueta, a Fil-Am citizen based in Arizona, engaged the

professional services of respondent Atty. Florida through his attorney-in-fact to
represent him in in intestate special proceedings. Years later, Milagros Yap
Abaqueta who is complainants ex-wife, filed an action for sum of money against

complainant where respondent signed as Milagros counsel. The subject of both

cases are parcels of land referred to as sole and exclusive properties of
complainant, but claimed as conjugal property by Milagros. Complainant argues that
respondents conduct or representing conflicting interests constitutes professional
misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes.

In his defense, respondent claims that he always acted in good faith in his
professional relationship with complainant. Respondent further pointed out that the
absence of personal contact with complainant and the lapse of eight years resulted
in the oversight and/or lapse of respondents memory that complainant was a former
client.

The IBP found that respondent clearly violated the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests and recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) months.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer should be sanctioned

HELD: YES. Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentof

allconcernedgivenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.
Respondent admitted that he did not secure the consent of complainant before
he agreed to act as Milagros Yap Abaquetas lawyer.
It is clear that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline such
employment subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double
dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided
.

Atty. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for Three (3) months.

CANON 15
[A.C. No. 4354. April 22, 2002]

LOLITA ARTEZUELA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RICARTE B.

MADERAZO, respondent.
FACTS: Complainant Artezuela is a carinderia-owner whose operation was stopped after
a car rammed into the small business. She engaged the services of the respondent in filing a
damage suit against the driver Echavia. The case was dismissed upon so complainant filed a
civil case for damages against the respondent Atty Maderazo. However, the case was
similarly dismissed.
Artezuela then filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent for having grossly
neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to her, respondent repeatedly sought the
postponement of the hearings and when he withdrew as counsel, he did so without obtaining
complainants consent. Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities
inimical to her interests in that while acting as her counsel, respondent prepared driver
Echavias Answer to the complaint.
Respondent denied the complainants allegations and averred that he withdrew as
counsel because the complainant was uncooperative and refused to confer with him. He
argued that Echavias Answer to the complaint was printed in his office but denied having
prepared the document and having acted as counsel of Echavia.
After investigation, the IBP found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests and recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent had acted as counsel-of-record of Echavia
HELD: YES. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, it is enough that the counsel
of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming
adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. A lawyer represents
conflictinginterestswheninbehalfofoneoftheclients,itishisdutytocontendforthat
whichdutytoanotherclientrequireshimtooppose.

The professional obligation of the lawyer to give his undivided attention and zeal for his
clients cause is likewise demanded in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON15Alllawyersshallobservecandor,fairnessandloyaltyinallhisdealingsand
transactionswithhisclients.
Rule15.03Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentofall
concernedgivenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.
As admitted by Echavia, he was approached by Atty. Maderazo, introduced himself as
his lawyer and after some sessions, asked him to return and sign a document which he later
identified as the Answer to the complaint.
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months with a stern
warning that a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

G.R. No. 160445

February 16, 2006

JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO and MA. AGNES R. MERCADO, Petitioners,

vs.
SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, Respondent.
Incidental to the present petition for review on certiorari is the contempt proceedings against petitioner Jose
Teofilo T. Mercado arising from his letter dated October 18, 2004, insinuating that: (1) the ponente
succumbed to the "tremendous pressure" of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in denying his petition; (2)
the Security Bank Corporation, respondent, financed the ponentes travel. Furthermore, he alleged that an
irregularity or bribery attended the denial of his petition for review
On the scheduled date, Mercado, together with Atty. Pablo G. Macapagal, his new counsel, appeared before
the Third Division and swore to the truth of the letter he wrote. 8 He manifested that he only stated therein
what Atty. Villanueva told him that his petition was denied for the second time "because of the tremendous
pressure from the Chief Justice."
On December 13, 2004, Mercado submitted his explanation 13 why he should not be punished for contempt of
court. He claimed that the contemptuous statements in his letter merely reiterate the tenor of Atty.
Villanuevas statements.
Mercado testified that it was Atty. Villanueva who informed him that the ponente is Justice Gutierrez. Atty.
Villanueva even bragged that she is his "very, very close friend."
On May 18, 2005, Justice Dacudao submitted his Investigation, Report and Recommendation. He found
Mercado "guilty of improper conduct tending to bring the authority and the administration of justice by the
Court into disrespect when he openly belittled, degraded, and embarrassed the Highest Court of the land,
particularly the Chief Justice. However, he held that "there was no showing that he acted with malice and/or
in bad faith or that he was properly motivated." Thus, he recommended that Mercado be fined in the sum of
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).

ISSUE: Whether or not acted with malice or bad faith in imputing those derogatory and disrespectful
remarks against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente.

HELD: YES. Without doubt, Mercados letter is marked with malice, bad faith, and gross disrespect. He
committed a remarkable feat of character assassination and honor vilification. He repeatedly humiliated him
and the Judiciary in the most loutish and insolent manner. The words in his letter are more accusatory than
inquisitorial. What is disconcerting is that his accusations have no basis in fact and in law.

The Court is also convinced that it was only through Atty. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or
known the name of the ponente in the case. Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body." Further, Rule 15.07 provides that "a lawyer must impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness." In informing Mercado that he was "a very very
good, close and long time friend" of the ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can
obtain a favorable disposition of his case.
Both of them are declared GUILTY of indirect contempt of court, fined and warned.

A.C. No. 3695 February 24, 1992

DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA, complainant,
vs.
AYTYS. FERNANDO ALCANTARA and JOSELITO LIM, respondents.
FACTS: Respondent is the counsel for Salud Balot and Felicidad Balot in a civil case suing the heirs of
Apolinario Gamalinda for reconveyance with damages of a certain lot in Tarlac. In the course of the trial,
plaintiffs were able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction which was made permanent in the decision of the
lower court. Pending appeal to the Court of Appeals, complainant herein entered a portion of the area in
dispute, in the belief that the whole lot belonged to him by virtue of a deed in his favor by the heirs of
Apolinario Gamalinda. When tenants of Salud Balot entered the lot cultivated by complainant, the latter reported
the incident to the police. However, from Salud Balot's viewpoint, it was complainant who intruded into her
land, relying on the injunction issued by the lower court. She filed through counsel, Atty. Lim, a motion to
declare complainant Gamalinda in contempt of court.
The result of the resurvey OF THE LOT ordered by the court showed that contrary to complainant's claim,
the lot occupied by him was the very same land involved in the civil case. Accordingly, the lower court
declared complainant in contempt and affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge and counsel are guilty of grave abuse of their profession
HELD: NO. The acts of Atty. Lim were all done in line with his duty to prosecute his clients' cause in the civil
case, The first motion was filed to protect his clients' possessory rights over the property in dispute while the
second motion was made to procure execution of the decision. A lawyer is expected to take such reasonable

steps and such ordinary care as his client's interests may require which is precisely what Atty. Lim was doing

when he filed the motions complained of.

The complaint against retired Judge Fernando Alcantara is is a futile attempt to resurrect the charges filed
against him which were already dismissed by the Court in a resolution. It serves as a bar to a relitigation of
the same charges against respondent judge.
Charges are dismissed for lack of merit.

A.C. No. 4380 October 13, 1995

NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B. PANTANOSAS, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN, respondent.
Complainants Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas were informed by the Register of Deeds of

Cagayan de Oro City that the duplicate of title covering their lands were entrusted to respondent Atty Miguel
Sabacajan. When demanded to deliver the said titles, refused and when confronted, respondent challenged
the complainants to file any case in any court.
In his answer, respondent that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the Supreme
Court. He also claims that he referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy, for whom he
worked out the segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of the this case.Atty. Sabacajan
stresses, by way of defense, that "the instant action was chosen precisely to browbeat him into delivering
the Certificates of Title to complainants without said certificates passing the hands of Mr. Samto Uy with
whom the complainants have some monetary obligations.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed any violation of the CPR

HELD: YES. Respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and
principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles
supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress
the latter of his power to do so.
As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful remedies provided by law to protect the interests
of his client. The records show that respondent merely resorting to unexplained, if not curt, refusals to
accommodate the requests of complainants. This caused injustice to the adversaries of his client.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan was SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show that the disputed
certificates of title have been returned to the complainants.

CANON 16

ANDREA BALCE CELAJE,

Complainant,
ATTY. SANTIAGO C. SORIANO,
Respondent.
October 9, 2007

A.C. No. 7418

Complainant Andrea Balce Celaje alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up
as an injunction bond. However, she later found out it to be unnecessary as the
application for the writ was denied by the trial court. Complainant alleged that respondent
also asked for money on several occasions allegedly to spend for or to be given to the
judge handling their case but when she approached the judge, the latter outrightly denied
the allegations and advised her to file an administrative case against respondent
In his Answer, respondent denied the charges against him and averred that the same were
merely concocted by complainant to destroy his character. He also contended that it was
complainant who boasted that she is a professional fixer in administrative agencies as
well as in the judiciary; and that complainant promised to pay him large amounts of
attorneys fees which complainant however did not keep
The IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct in his relations with
his client and recommended that respondent be suspended for three years from the
practice of law
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the CPR
HELD: YES. The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canon 16
thereof, mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession. He shall account for all money or property collected
or received from his client[8] and shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand.[9]
Respondent failed to do this and therefore was found GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) years.

A.C. No. 8159

(formerly CBD 05-1452)
April 23, 2010
REYNARIA BARCENAS,
ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO,
Respondent.

Complainant

FACTS: In 2004, complainant Reynaria Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo

San Antonio, entrusted to respondentAtty. Alvero the amount of P300,000.00, which the
latter was supposed to give to a certain Amanda Gasta to redeem the rights of his
deceased father as tenant of a ricefield. Later, Barcenas found out that Atty. Alvero was
losing a lot of money in cockfights. Subsequently, Barcenas discovered that Atty. Alvero
did not deposit the money in court, but instead converted and used the same for his
personal needs.

In his letters, Atty. Alvero admitted the receipt of the P300,000.00 and promised to
return the money but failed to do so. Thus, complainant prayed that Atty. Alvero be
disbarred for being a disgrace to the legal profession.

In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Alvero
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for gross misconduct.

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

HELD: YES. Undoubtedly, Atty. Alvero breached Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of
his client in the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his client

(a) when they become due, or (b) upon demand. In the instant case, respondent failed to
account for and return the P300,000.00 despite complainants repeated demand.
Atty. Alveros failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and
upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and
moral soundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action
Respondent IS GUILTY of gross misconduct is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of two
(2) years from the practice of law.

EDUARDO P. MENESES,
Complainant,
ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 6651

Promulgated:
February 27, 2006

FACTS: In March 1993, respondent offered his legal services to complainant to help
secure the release of complainants car from the Bureau of Customs. Respondent
proposed to handle the case for a package deal of P60,000 to which the complainant
agreed. A total of P40,000 was given by complainant to respondent. Since then,
respondent failed to give complainant an update on the matter for more than a year.
In 1994, complainant filed a complaint for estafa against respondent. In his letter,
respondent stated that he would settle the matter amicably with complainant but failed to
appear for the investigation scheduled. Later, the NBI found insufficient evidence to
prosecute respondent for estafa.
Complainant then filed a disbarment against respondent with the Commission on
Bar Discipline (Commission) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). IBP
found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of one year suspension from the
practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the CPR

HELD: YES. The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16, [14] Rule 16.01,
[15]
Rule 16.03,[16] and Rule 18.04[17] of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code).
Respondent Failed to Inform and to Respond to Inquiries of the
ComplainantRegarding the Status of the Case. Respondent also Failed to Account and
Return the Money He Received from Complainant.
Respondents conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety and a violation
of the trust reposed on him.[26] Respondents unjustified withholding of money belonging
to the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.[27]
Atty. Rodolfo P. Macalino was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year.
[A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]

LOURDES
R.
BUSIOS,
RICAFORT, respondent.

complainant,

vs. ATTY.

FRANCISCO

Complainant Lourdes R. Busios charged respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort

with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the sum
of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit
in the bank account of complainants husband, while P2,000.00 represented the
amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in a civil
case when no such bond was required. Respondent failed to file an answer despite
several orders by the Court.

After investigation, the IBP found out that in 1994, complainant appointed
respondent to be her attorney-in-fact in acaseinvolvingthepropertiesofthelatePedro
Rodrigo,fatherofcomplainant.Asattorneyinfact,respondentreceivedrentaldepositsfrom
OasStandardHighSchool.Themoneywasentrustedtorespondentwithanobligationonhis
parttodepositthesameintheaccountofcomplainantshusband.However,respondent
convertedthemoneytohisownpersonaluse,anddespiteseveraldemands,hefailedto
returnthesametocomplainant.Shewasthusconstrainedtofileacriminalcaseforestafa
andanadministrativecasefordisbarmentagainsthim.

TheIBPrecommendedthatrespondentbeSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfora
periodofONE(1)YEAR.
ISSUE:Whetherornottherespondentshouldbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw
HELD:Yes.RespondentviolatedCanon16oftheCPR.Respondents transgressions
manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical
behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble
profession to which he belongs.
For dishonesty, grave misconduct, grossly unethical behavior in palpable disregard
of Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules
16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
aggravated by a violation of Canon 11 thereof, the Court Resolved to DISBAR
respondent from the practice law.

[A.C. No. 1526. January 31, 2005]

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S.

HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent.

FACTS: Complainant Nazaria S. Hernandez engaged the legal services of

respondent Atty. Jose C. Go in 1961 after her ex-husbands numerous creditors
demanded payments of his loans. Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of
helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to give
him her land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then
persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or
valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the lots
and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Later, complainant learned that respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon.
Instead, he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in
his name, depriving her of her real properties worth millions. Complainant filed a
disbarment case against respondent and in his answer, respondent denied the
allegations and averred that he sold, in good faith, complainants lots to various
buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration.

ThefindingsoftheIBPCBDshowthatrespondentdidnotadherefaithfullyandhonestlyin
hisobligationanddutyascomplainantslegaladviserandcounselwhenhetookadvantage
ofthetrustandconfidencereposedinhimbythecomplainantinultimatelyputting
complainantspropertiesinhisnameandpossession.Itwasrecommendedthatrespondent
besuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix(6)months.

ISSUE:WhetherornotrespondentbreachedtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

HELD:Respondent breached Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

which provides that alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysandpropertiesofhisclient
thatmaycomeintohispossession.
His acts of acquiring for himself complainants lots entrusted to him are, by
constitute gross misconduct, a dereliction in duty, and implies a wrongful intent. He
violated this Courts mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,
especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice; (3)gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7)
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.
[10]

Considering the depravity of respondents offense, respondent JOSE S. GO was

held guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.

MELVIN D. SMALL,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 7021

ATTY. JERRY BANARES,

Respondent.

Promulgated:
February 21, 2007

FACTS: In 2001, complainant Melvin D. Small engaged the services of respondent Atty.
Jerry Banares
in
connection
with
several
complaints
to
be
filed
against one Lyneth Amar (Amar). Complainant paid respondent P20,000 as acceptance
fee. Complainant also gave respondent P60,000 as filing fees for the cases. Howver,
respondent was never heard of again and he failed to present any document for the cases
against Amar. This prompted complainant to demand for a full refund of the fees he had
paid respondent but respondent failed to do so. Hence, complainant filed a case for
disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent.

On 15 October 2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered
respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer
despite receipt of the order.
The IBP found that respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant despite
having been paid for his services. The Report considered complainants evidence
sufficient to find respondent guilty of violating Canons 16,[5] 18,[6] and 19[7] of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code). IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended the
imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two
years.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be suspended
HELD: The Code mandates that every lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client
that may come into his possession.[12] Furthermore, a lawyer shall account for all money
received from the client and shall deliver the funds of the client upon demand.[13]

Respondent specifically received P80,000 for his legal services and the filing fees for the
cases against Amar. Since respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant
and he failed to file a case against Amar, respondent should have promptly accounted for
and returned the money to complainant.
Respondent was found GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 18 and Rules 16.01, 16.03,
and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was
SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for two years.

A.C. No. 7181

February 6, 2009
MARIA ANGALAN ET AL
ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE,
Respondent.

Complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal (Angalan) and Sanaan Samal (Sanaan) who
owned a parcel of land in Samal Island, Davao. They borrowed P15,000 the Spouses
Eustaquio and mortgaged their land to secure the loan. The Spouses Eustaquio prepared a
document[2] and asked complainants to sign and affix their thumb marks on the document
which the complainants did.
Later, complainatns learned that the document was actually a deed of absolute sale and
not a real estate mortgage so they engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of
recovering their property. Complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an
amicable settlement whereby they agreed to a P30,000 repurchase price of the property.
Complainants did not have the P30,000 repurchase price for the property so respondent
advanced the P30,000. In return, complainants allowed respondent to possess the
property and gather its produce until he is paid. When complainants tried to repay
the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the property from respondent, respondent
refused. Apparently, respondent has transferred the title of the property to his name.
Complainants filed a complaint with the Court charging respondent with gross violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility but the complaint was later withdrawn.
Nevertheless, the IBP found that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended respondents suspension from the practice of law for
six months.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent committed grave violation of [the] Code of Professional
Responsibility when he bought the property of his client without their knowledge, consent
and against their will

HELD: YES. Respondent violated Canons 16 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Canon 16 states that lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their
clients that may come into their possession. Respondent should have held in trust and
returned
the property to complainants upon demand.[24] Instead of holding in
trust the property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to
his name, (2) refused to return the property to complainants, and (3) referred to
complainants charges as malicious and untruthful.

Considering the depravity of respondents offense, the Court found disbarred Atty.
Leonido C. Delante from the practice of law.