Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BURBE v. MAGULTA
FACTS:
After agreeing to take up the cause of a
client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause
and client, even if he never paid any fee
for the atty-client relationship. Lawyering
is NOT a business.
A case brought to the SC is a complaint for
disbarment
or
suspension/disciplinary
action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta.
Filed by Dominador P. Burbe w/ the IBP.
The petitioner was introduced to Atty
Magulta to represent him in a money claim
and possible civil case against parties for
breach of contract re Regwll complaint.
After which, Atty. Magulta prepared a
demand letter and some legal papers for
which the petitioner accordingly paid.
However, the latter failed a settlement for
a dispute, said counsel suggested to file
necessary complaint w/ a filing fee of
P25K.
Petitioner then deposited the said amount
to Atty. Magulta upon instruction. A week
later, he was informed by Atty. Magulta
that the complaint was already filed and
that Burbe will receive notice of progress.
He waited for MONTHS but there
seemed to be NO PROGRESS in his
case so he frequented Magultas office
and there he was told repeatedly to wait.
Grown impatient, he was brought to the
Hall of Justice at Ecoland, Davao City
where he was left at the City Prosecutor
Office ffof Magulta will follow up the
processes w/the Clerk of Court. Sensing
that Burbe was being given runaround by Magulta, he decided to go to
the office of the Clerk and then and there
was told that there was NO RECORD AT
ALL of a case allegedly filed by Atty.
Magulta.
And only when shown the certification did
counsel admit that he has not at all filed
BECAUSE HE HAD SPENT MONEY FOR
FILING FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE. To
UY v. GONZALES
FACTS:
WiLLIAM S. Uy filed an admin case against
Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentiality
of
their
lawyer-client
relationship.
That sometime in Apr 1999, he engaged
the services of said lawyer to prepare and
file a petition for the issuance of a new
certificate of title. After confiding w/
respondent the circumstances surrounding
the lost title and discussing the fees and
costs, respondent prepared, finalized and
submitted to him a petition to be filed
before the RTC of Tayug, Pangasinan. After
which,
respondent
went
to
the
complainants
office
and
demanded
IS PERTINENT
PROFESSION.
TO
MATTERS
OF
HIS
MERCADO v. VITRIOLO
FACTS:
Rosa F. Mercado filed an admin complaint
against
Atty
Julito Vitriolo seeking
disbarment.
Complaint
alleged
that
respondent
maliciously
instituted
a
criminal case for falsification of public
document against her, former client,
based confidential info gained from their
atty-client relationship.
Complainant
failed
to
prove
any
circumstances enumerated above that
would warrant the disbarment
or
suspension of respondent. NOTE: their
relationship stemmed froma PERSONAL
TRANSACTION OR DEALINGS rather than a
practice of law.
NOTE:
As
a
rule,
an
atty-client
relationship s said to exist when a lawyer
VOLUNTARILY PERMITS OR ACQUIESCES w/
the consultation of a person, who in
respect to a business or trouble of any
kind, consults a lawyer w/ a view of
obtaining profl advice or assistance
regardless of any retainer AS LONG AS IT
ALCALA v. RIVERA
FACTS:
Jose Alcala (deceased) and his wife,
Avelina Imperial, filed this present petition
for disbarment against Atty. Honesto de
Vera, practicing atty in Albay who was
retained by them in a civil case entitled
Ray Semenchilk v. Jose Alcala.
Complainants charged Atty. De Vera w/
gross negligence and malpractice for
having deliberately omitted to notify them
of a decision in a civil case resulting in
deprivation of their right to appeal from
adverse judgment rendered against them
and respondents indifference, disloyalty
LIM v. VILLAROSA
Humberto C. Lim filed a disbarment
complaint against Atty. NIcanor Villarosa
based on the ff cause of action.
That Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman and
Pres. of PRC (Penta Resorts Corp) was sued
before the RTC. It was said that the latter
engaged in the legal services of
respondent who formally entered as his
counsel in an atty-client rel.represented
Lumot Jalandoni, et al. The counsel was
provided w/ all necessary info relative to
the ppty in question and problems
involving Hotel Alhambra. However, w/o
due notice prior to scheduled hearing,
SURPRISINGLY filed a Motion to Withdraw
as counsel, one day before itse scheduled
hearing. On that Motion will conclusively
show that no copy thereof was furnished
to Lumot Jalandoni, et al. nor does it bear
her conformity.
GARCIA v. MANUEL
FACTS:
A disbarment complaint filed by Maritess
Garcia against respondent Atty Iluminado
M. Manuel for gorss misconduct for
ineffectively handling her case and failing
to returnto he rmoney she gave him.
HELD:
HELD:
RULE 1.01
Counsel
committed
dishonesty
and
abused the confidence reposed in him by
the complainant. He even asked the
complainant to raise the filing fee. After
receiving the registry return card, he still
did not file the ejectment case.
RULE 18.04 (lawyer shall keep client
informed)
The lawyer-client relationship being one of
confidence, there is ever present the need
for the client to be adequately and fully
informed of the devts of the case.
CANON 16, RULE 16.01 The highly
fiduciary and confidential nature of such
relations requires that the lawyer should
properly account for all the funds
received. It shall be returned to client
when became due or upon demand.
RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS.
YU v. TAJANLANGIT
FACTS:
AS
TO
RULE
16.01.
As
to
IBP
COmmisisoner, respondent was directed
to render accounting of the money he had
received and to itemize the nature of the
legal svs he had rendered incompliance of
Rule 16.101 and pay amount of tel bill.
SC: It is improper to apply cash bond s to
the pymt for his svs and reimbursement of
expenses he had incurred.
RULING: IBP RECOMM AFFRIMED.