IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE ADRIANO vs.

REMEGIO ESTABIA

Facts: Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital
punishment. On December, Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebias counsel de officio when his case came up before the Supreme
Court on review. Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days from notice. Adriano sought a 30-day extension to
file appellants brief in mimeograph form. After obtaining 4 extensions, he then, sought a special extension of five days. All of these
motions for extension were granted by the Court and the brief was nearly due. However, no brief was filed. For failing to comply, the
Supreme Court resolved to impose upon Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will be taken
against him upon further noncompliance. Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and
violation of his oath of office as attorney. A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18, 1968. However Adriano
ignored the
said resolution.

Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. Adriano as member of the bar deserve disciplinary action.

Held:Yes

Ratio: By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case
who is unable to employ an attorney. Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned "to render the required
service." A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert
his best efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of appellant's brief. And yet when he
received notice of his appointment, and when the last show cause order was issued by this Court, more than sufficient time was
afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de oficio. In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's statements in
his motions for extension have gone down to the level of empty and meaningless words; at best, have dubious claim to veracity.
Adrianos pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to be numb appreciation of his obligation as counsel de officio and of the courtesy
and respect that should be accorded this Court. For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. Adriano was suspended from the practice
of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one year.

ROLLON v NAVAL

FACTS
ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed against her (Collection of
Sum of Money) After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLONS lawyer and required her to pay P8,000 as
filing and partial service fee . As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY
NARAVAL told the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy. After several follow-ups and still no action,
ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement. ATTY
NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and the P8,000 paid by ROLLON because
he has no money
ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City
INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8,000

ISSUE

W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED

HELD

YES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18

RATIO: Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their
client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively and
competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake
the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a clients cause.
And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence. Hence, practicing lawyers may accept
only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced.
In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite
ROLLONS repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the money
ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him
Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and status of
the case. Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and had long become final executory. However,
ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee giving her hope
that her case would be acted upon.

HORNILLA V. SALUNAT

FACTS
Complainants in this case are members of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) who filed an intracorporate case against its members of the Board of Directors for unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of the real properties of
PPSTA corporation.
Attorney Salunat is the counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA) and at the same time the
counsel of the PPSTA Board of Directors.
Hence, complainants now aver that Atty. Salunat is guilty of conflict of interest.

ISSUE
Can a lawyer, engaged by a corporation, defend members of the board of the same corporation in a derivative suit?

HELD
No, a lawyer cannot. Hence, Atty. Salunat is guilty of representing conflicting interest and is admonished to observe a higher degree
of fidelity in the practice of his profession.
The Court in this case explained the nature of a derivative suit. Where corporation directors have committed a breach,
ultra vires acts, or negligence a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the
corporation. In this suit therefore, the corporation is the real party in interest, while the stockholder who files a suit for the
corporations behalf is only the nominal party.
The test of inconsistency of interest 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 double dealing in the
performance thereof.
A situation wherein a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict
of interest.

CANOY v ORTIZ

Facts: Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz deigned to represent. He claims having prepared the position
paper of Canoy, but before he could submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case. Atty. Ortiz
admits though that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the
position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor because he was too busy. Eventually, he withdrew from his other cases
and his free legal services. Complainant filed this complaint but later on withdrew .

Issue: WON Atty Ortiz is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes

Ratio: The severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation
clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then,
the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over
all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter.
Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the
services of another counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.

There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation without
even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what might be
perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the
practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to deviate from the norm in this case.

Elsie Aromin vs. Valentin Boncavil

FACTS: Ballesteros engaged services of respondent Atty. Boncavil in two cadastral cases. Upon receipt of the adverse decision in the
2 cases, Boncavil did not inform the claimants of the decision, did not file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal, did not
file a written offer of evidence despite the directive of the trial court and only filed a motion to substitute 4 years after the
complainants father died.

Issue: WON Atty Boncavil is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes

Ratio: Atty. Boncavil was suspended for 6 months from notice with a warning that repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely. Boncavil violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility providing that a lawyer should serve his client
with competence and diligence and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer must not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

HADJULA V. ATTY MADIANDA

Facts:

Hadjula claimed that she asked legal advice from her friend, Atty. Madianda. She disclosed confidential information during that
period. However, after the confidential information was given by Hadjula, Atty. Madianda referred her to another lawyer.
Hadjula filed a complaint against Atty. Madianda because of this, claiming the lawyer just wanted to hear her secrets. In
answering the complaint, Atty. Madianda filed a counter complaint against Hadjula for falsification of public documents and
immorality using the disclosures as basis for the charges.

Issue: WON Atty Madianda is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes

Ratio: The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship
evolved between the two. Atty. Madianda should have kept the information secret and confidential, under the attorney-client privilege
rule.
However, the seriousness of the respondents offense notwithstanding, the Court feels that there is room for compassion,
absent compelling evidence that she (Atty. Madianda) acted with ill-will. It appears that she was actuated by the urge to retaliate
without perhaps realizing that in the process of giving bent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule of confidentiality.

REDDI V. SERBIO, JR.

Facts: Respondent was introduced to Complainant (an American citizen) whom he enticed to acquire certain real estate to further her
philanthropic desire of establishing a hospital for the poor. Respondent advised Complainant (being a foreigner), to use corporate
vehicles (thus, the formation of three corporations) for the purchases of lands in Tagaytay City (which turned out to be have been
acquired by another person via foreclosure sale), Las Pias City, Makati City(which she later discovered was not actually owned by
the buyer), Quezon City (which lot is occupied by SM North Mall but claimed by Respondent to be owned by his client), and Pasay
City (supposedly vacant lots which were actually owned by certain banks). Complainant alleged that Respondent duped her into
giving him a total of $3M for these purchases.

Issue:
Is respondent guilty of violating Canon 16?

Held: Yes.

Ratio: Said canon requires that a lawyer should properly account for all amounts in his custody which pertain to the client and return
the same upon demand. This the respondent plainly failed to do even after repeated demands made by Reddi.

RBCI v FLORIDO

FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility. According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagos group, through
force and intimidation, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the
bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the
bank. 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 RBCIs 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 19.

HELD: Yes

Ratio: The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended for a year. 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. It is the lawyers 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. 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. A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that
end, his clients 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 clients cause is condemnable and unethical

GAMILLA v MARIO

FACTS: Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits amounting to P35 milllion. The 1986 collective bargaining
agreement expired in 1988 but efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed. In 1989, the faculty members of UST went on strike
and as a counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty
Marino, Jr. The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective
bargaining agreement expired. In the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty Union also entered into a
compromise agreement for the payment to settle backwages. The important fact in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president,
negotiated with UST as union attorney, even though he was an interested party since he was one of the officers who were dismissed
(conflict of interests)

ISSUE: WoN Marino violated the CPR?

HELD: YES

RATIO:Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the
diverse roles of union president, union atty and interested party being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution,
and thereafter, when he obtained the attorneys fees of P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying
such claim to the members of the UST FacultyUnion.2. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seekingcompensation from the
UST for their illegal dismissal, Atty. Marino was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act as concurrent
lawyer and president of the UST Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement. The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof. In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an atty to put himself in a position where selfinterest tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his
client.3. Atty Marino. Both as lawyer and president of the union was dutybound to protect and advance the interest of the union

members and the bargaining unit above his own. This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest complicated the
negotiation process and eventually resulted in the lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought money to him at
the expense of the other faculty members. He also ought to have disclosed his interest

CHUA v MESINA, Jr

Facts: Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a building owned by Mesinas
family. The property, however, was actually mortgaged infavor of a bank for a loan obtained by Mesinas motherFelicisima Melencio
(who was the registered owner as well). When Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank, the spouses were convinced by
Mesina to help his mother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale was made conveying the
property to the spouses. But when the spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty Mesina suggested to execute another deed
of salethis time, the date of the transaction is 1979, which is before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax. Not long
after the title was handed over to the spouses, another lessee of the building Tecsonquestioned the transaction as
he was, himself, interested in buying the property. Tecson filed charges for falsification of documents. To avoid
the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a deed of sale wherein the spouses would appear to resell the property to
Felicisima. A new title was issued to Felicisima by virtue of said deed but this was entrusted in the hands of the spouses. Later on,
Tecson desisted from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina borrowed the title of the property from the spouses and promised to
transfer, yet again, title in the name of thes pouses.But Mesina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the
property is being offered to a public sale. Hence the action. The case was investigated by the IBP and recommended that Mesina be
suspended for gross misconduct.

Issue:Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct?

Held: Yes

Ratio: When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed of sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains tax, he
violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes. When he convinced Chua to execute another deed to make it
appear that the property was conveyed back to Felicisima, Mesina committed dishonesty. And when he obtained the title upon the
misrepresentation that he will return the same after 4 months, he committed dishonesty again. There were also badges of fraud that
can be attributed to Mesina as there were marked differences in the signatures of Felicisima. Clearly, Mesina violated his oath of
office and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His disbarment is warranted.

HERNANDEZ V GO

Facts: Complainant engaged respondents services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing
that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors. Respondent abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her
properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations. Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers,
complainant could have earned more. Records show that she did not receive any amount from respondent.

Issue: WON Atty Go is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes.

Ratio: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. 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.

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. When it appears that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of
his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his
conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.

Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects his clients cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.

TAROG V RICAFORT

Facts: In 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Jaime L. Miralles regarding their bank-foreclosed property located in the Bicol
Region. Atty. Miralles advised them to engage a Bicol-based attorney for that purpose. Thus, they went to see Atty. Ricafort
accompanied by Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a brother of Atty. Miralles.1 They ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their
attorney on account of his being well-known in the community, and being also the Dean of the College of Law of Aquinas University
where their son was then studying.
Having willingly accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filing fee, which they gave to
him.2 He explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer
of the foreclosed property. After they informed him that they had onlyP60,000.00, he required them to add some more amount
(dagdagan niyo ng konti).3 To raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, therefore, Vidal solicited a loan from one Sia with the guarantee of
his brother Atty. Miralles. Sia issued a check in that amount in the name of Arnulfo.4
On November 7, 1992, the Tarogs and Vidal went to the office of Atty. Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00. When Arnulfo said that he
had first to encash the check at the bank, Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to entrust the check to him instead so that he (Atty. Ricafort)
would be the one to encash it and then deposit the amount in court. On that representation, Arnulfo handed the check to Atty.
Ricafort.5
After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not
deposited the amount in court, but in his own account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries
about when the amount would be returned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in
good hands.
The Tarogs further claimed that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, in Sorsogon (RTC), where their complaint for annulment of sale
was being heard, had required the parties to file their memoranda. Accordingly, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for that
purpose, but he did not file the memorandum.6
When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning theP65,000.00, plus interest,
Arnulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3, 2002 that Atty. Ricafort return theP65,000.00, plus interest, and the P15,000.00
paid for the filing of the memorandum.7 Yet, they did not receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort.
In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in court, insisting that the amount was
payment for his legal services under a "package deal," that is, the amount included his acceptance fee, attorneys fee, and
appearance fees from the filing of the complaint for annulment of sale until judgment, but excluding appeal. He claimed that the fees

were agreed upon after considering the value of the property, his skill and experience as a lawyer, the labor, time, and trouble
involved, and his professional character and social standing; that at the time he delivered the check, Arnulfo read, understood, and
agreed to the contents of the complaint, which did not mention anything about any consignation;8 and that Arnulfo, being a retired
school principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallen for any scheme like the one they depicted against him.
Issue: WON Atty Ricafort is guilty of violating the CPR?
Held: Yes

Ratio: Atty. Ricaforts act of obtaining P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 from the Tarogs under the respective pretexts that the amount
would be deposited in court and that he would prepare and file the memorandum for the Tarogs erected a responsibility to account
for and to use the amounts in accordance with the particular purposes intended. For him to deposit the amount of P65,000.00 in his
personal account without the consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon demand, and for him to fail to file the memorandum and
yet not return the amount ofP15,000.00 upon demand constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He
reneged on his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the amounts for the particular purposes
intended.29 He was thereby presumed to have misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of his clients and in
violation of the clients trust reposed in him.30 He could not escape liability, for upon failing to use the moneys for the purposes
intended, he should have immediately returned the moneys to his clients.31
Atty. Ricaforts plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable for violation of Canon
16,32 particularly Rule 16.01, supra, and Canon 17,33 all of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts and actuations
constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics that impaired public confidence in the legal profession and
deserved punishment
LOURDES R. BUSIOS V ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT

Facts: Complainant charged respondent 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 did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the amount,
complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Issue: WON Atty Ricafort is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes.

Ratio: There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their consent. Money collected by a
lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and by deceiving the complainant
into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded
himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as
an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a
criminal prosecution.

RUBY MAE BARNACHEA vs. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO

Facts: Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a
property previously owned by her sister. Complainant was able to pay respondent for legal fees. Respondent failed. Complainant
demanded that respondent refund to her the legal fees and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him. However,
respondent failed to comply with said demands.

Issue: WON Atty Quiocho is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes.

Ratio: Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may be
removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law
confer upon him.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. The conversion by a lawyer funds
entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character. A lawyer
is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore,
demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the
interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him.

Cantiller v Potenciano

Facts: Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He is charged with
deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.

An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to vacate was
then issued against Cantiller.

Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a
"[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment.

The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded from the complainant P l,000.00 as
attorney's fee. However the judge of the said court asked the respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship.

Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who
will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge.

Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter. The amount was allegedly to be deposited with the
Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and P 1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed in order for
the complainant to retain the possession of the property. But later on Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be
paid. A demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the amounts were not returned.

Contrary to Potencianos promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant.
Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.

Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Held: Yes

Ratio: When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final
conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust
which the client had reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional
ethics.

The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

NGAYAN v TUGADE

Facts:
-Ngayan asked Tugade to prepare and affidavit to be used as basis for a complaint against Soriano and Leonido as a consequence of
the latters entry into complainants dwelling. Ngayan signed the affidavit without thoroughly reading it but she noticed one
paragraph which did not mention that Leonido was with Soriano when they both barged into complainants residence.
-Upon being informed of this omission, Tugade crossed out the said paragraph. Ngayan asked Tugade to make another affidavit and
the latter promised to do so.
-Ngayan discharged Tugade as their counsel and found out that Tugade did not include the name of Leonido in the criminal case filed.
-When the omission was remedied by their new counsel, the adverse parties filed a motion for reinvestigation through their counsel,
Atty. Gaminda, who was a former classmate of Tugade.
-Tugade was also a lawyer of the brother of Leonido in an insurance company.
-In the hearing for the motion for reinvestigation, the adverse parties in affidavit which Tugade prepared for Ngayan, with one
paragraph crossed out. Tugade himself presented an affidavit controverting the discarded affidavit which he prepared for Ngayan.
-Thus Ngayan charged Tugade for violation of paragraphs (e) and (f), Sec.20, Rule 138 Rules of Court
(e) to maintain inviolate the confidenceand to preserve the secrets of his client
(f) to abstain from all offensive personality..against a party or witness

Issue: W/N Tugade must be disciplined for violation of the said Rule

HELD: YES, he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Ratio: When Tugade furnished the adverse parties with a copy of the discarded affidavit, thus enabling the adverse parties to use it
as evidence against complainants, he betrayed the trust and confidence of his clients in violation of paragraph (e) Sec.20 Rule 138
-Tugades actuations from the beginning show that he was partial to the adverse parties. This could be explained by the fact that he
was a former classmate of Atty.Gaminda, the adverse parties counsel, and also by the fact that he was the lawyer of Leonidos
brother in an insurance company.

-Tugade submitted an affidavit containing facts prejudicial to his former client such as the fact that the crime charged by Ngayan had
already prescribed, and that Ngayan asked him to make the offense more grave to prevent the offense from prescribing. This
constitutes an act of offensive personality against complainants, violative of par.(f) Sec.20 Rule 138.

IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY LEON G. MAQUERA

Facts:
Atty Maquera was counsel for a certain Castro who was indebted to Edward Benavente who obtained judgment in a civil case.
Castros propery was sold at public auction to satisfy the obligation, but Castro retained the right to redemption over said property.
In consideration for Maqueras legal fees, Castro and Atty Maquera entered into an oral agreement that he would assign his right of
redemption to Maquera.
Maquera purchased the property from Benavente for $525.00 then sold it for $320,000.
He was suspended in the practice of law in Guam for two years for
Obtaining an unreasonably high fee for his services
Did not comply with Guams Model Rules by entering into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary
interest adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyer's acquisition of such interest are fair and
reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in writing

Issue:
May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he has
also be admitted as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same infraction committed in
the foreign jurisdiction?

Ruling:
It is not automatic suspension or disbarment, but is prima facie evidence only.
The power of the Court to disbar/suspend a lawyer for acts an omission committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in Sec 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court:
[]The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for
disbarment or suspension.
Also, he violated Article 1492 in relation to 1491 of the civil code which prohibits a lawyer from acquiring by assignment the clients
property which is the subject of litigation. It extends to legal redemption.
Most particularly, Canon 17 which states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and be mindful of the trust and
confidence In him; and rule 1.01, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
HOWEVER, there is a need to ascertain Maquera has the right to explain why he should and should not be suspended/disbarred on
those grounds. Suspension/disbarment is NOT automatic
NEVERTHELESS, the Court rules that Maquera should be suspended from the practice of law for the non-payment of his IBP dues from
1977.

EMMA V. DE JUAN vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA II, respondent.

Facts: Petitioner was terminated without notice or explanation so she filed a complaint before the NLRC against the company for
illegal dismissal. In search of a lawyer, she asked the assistance of BBC which assigned respondent to handle her labor case. On
December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of complainant. The Company appealed to the NLRC. In a decision
promulgated on September 24, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared there was no illegal dismissal.

Complainant blamed respondent for the reversal. She said that she came to know of the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision when
she called respondent in October 2001. When she asked the respondent what they should do, respondent answered, Paano iyan
ihaehhindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in failing to file for the
complainant a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC.

Held: Yes.

Ratio: No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause
of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Further, among
the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his
services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. Any dereliction of duty by a counsel,
affects the client. This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the
law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC such that the said decision
eventually had become final and executory. Respondent does not refute this. His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for
reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. After complainant had expressed an interest to file a motion for reconsideration, it was
incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize himself with the procedural rules for a motion for
reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a complicated legal task.

We are however, not unaware that respondent had been forthright and candid with his client when he warned her of his lack of
experience as a new lawyer. We are also not unaware that he had advised complainant to get a new lawyer. However, his candor
cannot absolve him. Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains counsel of record
and whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold. An
attorney may only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and
hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. Respondent did not
comply with these obligations.

Negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.

ENDAYA v OCA

Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the
spouses.
At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public
Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case.

At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied.
The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission
of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the case were not reall parties-in-interest.
The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate
the property and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca
did indeed receive a copy of the decision (liar!).
Hence this administrative complaint.

Issue:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct

Held:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.

Ratio: Facts to show Atty. Oca is guilty:

In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition of the
answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint.
SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder
because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter.
The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing
to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his
client.
Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is
terminated.
Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of
his duties as a lawyer.
Why not disbarred?
Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a lawyer
Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim.
The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.

DALISAY v MAURICIO
This is the case against Batas Mauricio, the TV host.
Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorneys fees but did not take any action on Valerina Dalisays case.
Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.
In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a combination of the ff:
Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in cash.
P3,000.00 as appearance fee
notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. She terminated their attorney-client relationship and
demanded the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused.
The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.

Issue:
W/N Atty Mauricio is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held:
Yes

Ratio: When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latters case and
that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to serve complainant with
competence and attend to her case with fidelity, care and devotion.
But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record.
He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services.
Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): there was no evidence nor any pleadings submitted to show that
respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with the filing of a case.
when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.
Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he should charge only a reasonable
amount of fees.

SOMOSOT V. LARA

FACTS
Atty Gerardo Lara represented Ofelia Somosot in a collections case against Golden Collections Marketting Corp.
Golden Collections filed interrogatories and request for Admission
Atty Lara objected, stating that such interrogatories and admission should be sent directly to Mrs. Somosot
At this point, we should take note that Atty Lara is already sensitive about the P27,000 in unpaid attys fees
Nov. 2001, Atty Lara was appointed as a consultant in the Board of Investment, a government position
Lara tried to locate Somosot about the fees in her office in Greenhills; office was locked and according to the security guard, they had
moved office without leaving a forwarding address. Lara also attempted to call Mr and Mrs Somosot, but they couldnt be reached
Lara filed his Withdrawal of Appearance in court, without the required conformity of his client, Somosot, because she could be
located. This was denied.
Dec. 2001, upon learning that Somosots new office was in Pasig, he called her where he advised that she should find another
Lawyer. She informed her that she already did.
September, 2005. Lara receives a letter from Somosot giving him one last chance to give her a reason not to instigate a disbarment
suit against him.

ISSUE
W/N Atty Lara, from the facts stated, is deemed incompetent in his services to Mrs. Ofelia Somosot.

HELD
Yes.

Ratio: Atty Laras services were insufficient. His neglect (or refusal) to reply to the Interrogatories and Request for Admissions himself
eventually caused the court to rule against Mrs. Somosot. Records do not show how exactly he tried to address the Interrogatories
issue or whether he appealed the case or not.

He did not mention how he tried to locate Mrs. Somosot to inform her about the Interrogatories and Request for Admission. He only
took the initiative when he learned that he had been appointed into a government position.
Lara was very much sensitive about his unpaid billings, and this shouldnt be a reason for him not to inform his client about the
cases development
He had two valid reasons for withdrawing as her Atty. One, his appointment in a government office; and two, Somosots refusal to pay
his fees. He could have secured her conformity to the withdrawal of appearance when they talked on December 2001, but because
he failed to do so, he remain as counsel of record.

PENA V. APARICIO

FACTS
Atty. Aparicio was the legal counsel for Grace Hufana in an alleged dismissal case before the NLRC against Pena, President of MOF
Company. Atty. Aparicio prayed that his client be given separation pay. Pea rejected the claim. Thereafter, Pea sent notices to
Hufana to return to work. Atty. Aparicio replied with a letter reiterating the claim of his client. The letter also contained threats
against the company stating that if the claim is not paid on Aug. 10, 2005, they will file multiple charges such as, criminal charges for
tax evasion, falsification of documents, and for the cancellation of the companys business license.
Pea filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Aparicio with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for violating Rule 19.01
of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Aparicio in turn filed counterclaims for the defamatory charges against
him. The IBP dismissed the complaint because Pea had allegedly failed to file his position paper and the certification against forum
shopping. The IBP transmitted the records of the case to the SC.
Atty. Aparicio filed an MR with the SC reiterating his claim for damages against Pea in the amount of P400M for filing false,
malicious, defamatory, fraudulent suit against him. Pea likewise filed this Petition for Review alleging that he submitted his position
paper and that the dismissal denied him of due process.

ISSUE
W/N Atty. Aparicio is guilty of violating Rule 19.01?

HELD Yes

Ratio: First of all, the SC found that Pea actually submitted his position paper. In addition, disbarment proceedings are sui generis,
hence, the requirement of a certification of forum shopping is not to be strictly complied with in such a case. At any rate, Pea
actually submitted a certification against forum shopping after Atty. Aparicio filed the motion to dismiss, curing the supposed defect
in the original complaint.

Canon 19, a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law, this shows that a lawyers duty to his client is
subordinate to his duty in the administration of justice. Rule 19.01, a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Under such Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file baseless
criminal cases against the adversaries of his client to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield to the claims of the
lawyers client. This is exactly what Atty. Aparicio did in this case.
Furthermore, his threats were not only unethical, but they amounted to blackmail extortion of money by threats of accusation or
exposure in the public prints. Blackmail and extortion would not only entail disbarment but also possible criminal prosecution. Worse
yet, Atty. Aparicio actually admitted and even found it his obligation to tell the truth of the offenses he imputed against Pea. He also
stated that the writing of demand letters is standard practice.

SC ruled that Atty. Aparicios assertions are misleading because the fact of the matter is, he used such threats to gain leverage
against Pea and force the latter to accede to his clients claims. The letter even implied a promise to keep silent about the said
violations if the claim is met.
While it is true that writing demand letters is standard practice in the profession of law, such letters must not contain threats such as
those found in this case. Nevertheless, SC held that disbarment is too severe a penalty considering that Atty. Aparicio wrote the letter
out of his overzealousness to protect his clients interests. Therefore, the SC reprimanded him with a stern warning.

Solidon v. Macalalad

FACTS: Complainant, through a mutual acquaintance asked respondent to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by
complainants relatives. Respondent accepted the task to be completed within a period of eight (8) months and received Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when
complainant received the certificate of title to the property. Respondent has not filed any petition for registration over the property
sought to be titled up to the filing of this case. In the Complaint, Position Papers and documentary evidence submitted, complainant
claimed that he tried to contact respondent to follow-up on the status of the case six (6) months after he paid the initial legal
fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a letter
sent by courier to the respondent. However, he did not receive any return communication. Complainant sought the disbarment of
respondent for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility involving negligence in
handling a case. Complainant argued that he had no intention of reneging from his obligation, as he already had prepared the draft
petition, and he failed to file it because it lacked the needed documentary requirements that his clients should have furnished him.
The Investigating Commissioner of IBP made a finding negligence on the part of the respondent. This was affirmed by the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents excuse is exculpatory.

Held: No.

Ratio: Respondents excuse is not exculpatory. He was imposed the (modified) penalty of suspension for six (6) months from the
practice of law and was ordered to return to the complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve
percent (12%) per annum from the date of promulgation of the Decision until the full amount is returned.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the
burden to discharge. We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainants evidence, as
outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in proving respondents negligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides for the rule on negligence and states:
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 has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the
client is considered per se a violation. (underscoring provided)
In addition to the above finding of negligence, [Court] also [found] respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. In this case, respondent did
not immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from complainant even after he failed to render any legal
service within the contracted time of the engagement.

Urban Bank, Inc. vs Atty. Magdaleno Pea

In 1994, Isabel Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI) sold a parcel of land to Urban Bank, Inc. (UBI). The land was sold forP240 million. As the
land was occupied by unauthorized sub-tenants, ISCIs lawyer, Atty. Magdaleno Pea had to negotiate with them for them to relocate.

But the said occupants, knowing that the land was already transferred to UBI, refused to recognize Pea. ISCI then communicated
with UBI so that the latter may authorize Pea to negotiate with the tenants. Pea had to barricade himself inside the property to
keep the tenants out who were forcing their way in especially so that the local cops are now sympathetic to them. Pea then had a
phone conversation with Teodoro Borlongan, president of UBI, where Pea explained to him the situation. In said conversation, Pea
asked authorization from Borlongan to negotiate with the tenants. Pea also asked that he be paid 10% of the purchase price or (P24
million) for his efforts. Borlongan agreed over the phone on the condition that Pea should be able to settle with the tenants
otherwise he forfeits said 10% fee. Pea also asked that said authorization be put into writing.
The authorization was put into writing but no mention was made as regards the 10% fee, (in short, that part was not written in the
written authorization released by UBI). Pea was able to settle and relocate the tenants. After everything was settled and the
property is now formally under the possession of UBI, Pea began sending demands to UBI for the latter to pay him the P24 million
fee agreed upon, plus his expenses for the relocation of the tenants and the hiring of security guards or an additional P3 million. But
UBI refused to make payment hence Pea filed a complaint for recovery against UBI.
The trial court ruled in favor of Pea as it found there indeed was a contract of agency created between and UBI and that Pea is
entitled to the 10% fee plus the expenses he incurred including litigation expenses. In sum, the trial court awarded him P28 million.
The Court of Appeals however reversed the order of the trial court. It ruled that no agency was formed but for his legal services, Pea
is entitled to payment but applying the principle of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, Pea should only be paid P3 million.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Magdaleno Pea is entitled to receive the P28 million.
HELD: No.

Ratio: The Supreme Court ruled that said amount is unconscionable. Pea is entitled to payment for compensation for services
rendered as agent of Urban Bank, but on the basis of the principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. In the first place, other
than the self-serving testimony of Pea, there was no other evidence presented to support his claim that Borlongan agreed to pay
him that 10% over the phone. The written authorization later issued merely confirms the power granted him to negotiate with the
tenants. The written authorization proved the existence of agency but not the existence of any agreement as to how much Pea
should be paid.
Absent any such agreement, the principle of quantum meruit should be applied. In this case, Pea is entitled to receive what he merit
for his services, or as much as he has earned. In dealing with the tenants, Pea didnt have to perform any extraordinary acts or legal
maneuvering. Hence, he is entitled to receive P1.5 million for his legal services. He is also entitled to reimbursement for his expenses
in securing the property, to wit, P1.5 million for the security guards he had to hire and another P1.5 million for settling and relocating
the 23 tenants. Total of P4.5 million.
The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration.

Quirante vs. IAC

FACTS: In the case of Dr. Casasolas claim against its erring building contractor, the trial court ruled in favor of the former who
eventually died.Here, petitioner Atty. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the confirmation of his attorneys fees. According to
him, there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. Casasola with regard to his attorneys fees, as confirmed in writing
by the latters surviving spouse and two daughters to be computed as follows:
In case of recovery of the P120,000.00 surety bond, the attorneys fees of the undersigned counsel (Atty. Quirante) shall be
P30,000.00;
In case the Honorable Court awards damages in excess of the P120,000.00 bond, it shall be divided equally between the Heirs of Dr.
Casasola, Atty. John C. Quirante and Atty. Dante Cruz.
The trial court granted the motion for confirmationdespite an opposition thereto.In the petition for review oncertiorari, the respondent
court (IAC) ruled that the confirmation of attorneys fees is premature.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Quirante is entitled of the attorneys fees.

HELD: NO. Ruling of respondent court affirmed.

RATIO: Since the main case from which the petitioners claims for their fees may arise has not yet become final, the determination of
the propriety of said fees and the amount thereof should be held in abeyance. The orderly administration of justice dictates that such
issue be likewise determined by the court a quo inasmuch as it also necessarily involves the same contingencies in determining the
propriety and assessing the extent of recovery of attorneys fees. The alleged confirmation to attorneys fees should not adversely
affect the non-signatories in the petition, since it is also premised on the eventual grant of damages to the Casasola family.

METROBANK v CA

FACTS: A certain Celedonio Javier bought seven (7) parcels of land owned by Eustaquio Alejandro, et al., with a total area of about ten
(10) hectares. These properties were thereafter mortgaged by Javier with the petitioner to secure a loan obligation of one Felix
Angelo Bautista and/or International Hotel Corporation. During the pendency of these suits that these parcels of land were sold by
petitioner to its sister corporation, Service Leasing Corporation and on the same day, the properties were resold by the latter to
Herby Commercial and Construction Corporation. Three months later, mortgaged the same properties with Banco de Oro wherein the
lower court found that private respondent, did not have knowledge of these transfers and transactions.

Petitioner filed an

urgent motion for substitution of party as a consequence of the transfer of said parcels of land to Service Leasing Corporation. Private
respondent, on its part, filed a verified motion to enter in the records of the aforesaid civil cases its charging lien, pursuant to Section
37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the actual and current market values of the litigated
properties as its attorney's fees. Despite due notice, petitioner failed to appear and oppose said motion, as a result of which the
lower court granted the same and ordered the, Register of Deeds of Rizal to annotate the attorney's liens on the certificates of title of
the parcels of land.

Private respondent filed a motion to fix its attorney's fees, based on quantum meruit, which motion precipitated an exchange of
arguments between the parties. On May 30, 1984, petitioner manifested that it had fully paid private respondent; the latter, in turn,
countered that the amount of P50,000.00 given by petitioner could not be considered as full payment but merely a cash advance,
including the amount of P14,000.00 paid to it on December 15, 1980. It further appears that private respondent attempted to
arrange a compromise with petitioner in order to avoid suit, offering a compromise amount of P600,000.00 but the negotiations were
unsuccessful.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not private respondent is entitled to the enforcement of its charging lien for payment of its attorney's fee.

2. Whether or not a separate civil suit is necessary for the enforcement of such lien.

3. Whether or not private respondent is entitled to twenty-five (25%) of the actual and current market values of the litigated
properties on a quantum meruit basis.

HELD:
1. NO. On the matter of attorney's liens Section 37, Rule 138 provides: He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of
his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of
the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and executions as his client would

have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements. Consequent to such provision, a charging lien, to
be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney's fees, requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and
execution in pursuance of such judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in favor of his client. A lawyer may enforce his
right to fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident in the main action in which his services were rendered when something is
due his client in the action from which the fee is to be paid. The civil cases below were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs
"in view of the frill satisfaction of their claims."

2. NOT NECESSARY. At this juncture an enforceable charging lien, duly recorded, is within the jurisdiction of the court trying the main
case and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is settled. Court trying main case will determine attorneys fees.

3. The Court refused to resolve issue but gave the elements to be considered in fixing a reasonable compensation for the services
rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit. These are:

(1) the importance of the subject matter in controvers

(2) the extent of the services rendered, and
(3) the professional standing of the lawyer order of the trial court is hereby

REVERSED and SET.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review is hereby GRANTED and the decision of respondent Court of Appeals of February 11,
1988 affirming the order of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to such appropriate proceedings as
may be brought by private respondent to establish its right to attorney's fees and the amount thereof.

HILADO v DAVID

Facts: Petitioner alleged that she and the counsel for the defendant had an attorney-client relationship with her when, before the trial
of the case, she went to defendants counsel, gave him the papers of the case and other information relevant thereto, although she
was not able to pay him legal fees. That respondents law firm mailed to the plaintiff a written opinion over his signature on the
merits of her case; that this opinion was reached on the basis of papers she had submitted at his office; that Mrs. Hilado's purpose in
submitting those papers was to secure Attorney Francisco's professional services. Atty. Francisco appeared as counsel for defendant
and plaintiff did not object to it until (4) months after. Then, plaintiff moved to dismiss the case between her and defendant.

Issue: Was there an attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and Atty. Francisco?

Held: Yes.

Ratio: In order to constitute the relation a professional one and not merely one of principal and agent, the attorneys must be
employed either to give advice upon a legal point, to prosecute or defend an action in court of justice, or to prepare and draft, in
legal form such papers as deeds, bills, contracts and the like.

To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any
previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that
the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his
business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional
advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must
be regarded as established.

An attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his
client's preliminary statement of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is drawing his client's
pleadings, or advocating his client's cause in open court. An acceptance of the relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his
acting in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter.

That only copies of pleadings already filed in court were furnished to Attorney Agrava and that, this being so, no secret
communication was transmitted to him by the plaintiff, would not vary the situation even if we should discard Mrs. Hilado's statement
that other papers, personal and private in character, were turned in by her. Precedents are at hand to support the doctrine that the
mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite party's retainer in the same litigation
regardless of what information was received by him from his first client.

An attorney, on terminating his employment, cannot thereafter act as counsel against his client in the same general matter, even
though, while acting for his former client, he acquired no knowledge which could operate to his client's disadvantage in the
subsequent adverse employment
"A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future services, and induce him to act for
the client. It is intended to remunerate counsel for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering
services to the other and of receiving pay from him, and the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the
contrary, is neither made nor received in payment of the services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the obligation of the
client to pay his attorney for the services which he has retained him to perform."

Yao v Aurelio

Facts: Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation and
since 1987, he retained the services of another stockholder, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, as his personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law
of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a disagreement. Aurelio then filed cases against Yao and his wife. Yao alleged that the series of suits
filed against him and his wife constitute an abuse of the confidential information which Aurelio obtained by virtue of his employment
as counsel. Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed those which he obtained by virtue of his being a stockholder of Solar
Textile Finishing Corporation. The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying dividends to Aurelio which
compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder. He recommended that
Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and adopted the said recommendation.

Issue: Whether or not Aurelio violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes.

Ratio: Atty. Leonardo Aurelio is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. He took advantage of his
being a lawyer in order to get back at Yao and in doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings
with Yao and his companies for his own end. It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is
afiduciary 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. An attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him
in hisprofessional character by a client, unless the latter consents. It is to preserve theconfidences and secrets of a client arise at the
inception of their relationship. It 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

141 GENATO v SILAPAN

FACTS:
- Complaint for disbarment filed by William Ong Genato against Atty. Essex Silapan
- The various criminal and civil cases were not discussed, because it was left for the trial courts to decide. (Genato lent Silapan
money to purchase a new car. Silapan mortgaged his house and lot. When SIlapan failed to pay, GEnato sought the foreclosure of the
mortgage and tried to encash a postdated check issued by Silapan, which subsequently bounced.) The Court, in this case, cannot
sanction Atty. Silapan
for his issuance of a bouncing check.
- When Genato filed a BP 22 case against Atty. Silapan, the latter alleged in his answer that during the previous case (criminal case),
Genato wanted Atty Silapan to offer bribe money to members of DOJ, even the prosecutor, and presiding judge. Atty. SIlapan refused
since such acts are immoral and illegal but also because 'the complainant confided to him that he was really involved in the
commission of the crime
that was charged'.

ISSUE: WoN Atty. Silapan committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing to Genato illegal practices and disclosing alleged
intention to bribe govt officials in connection with a pending case?

HELD: NO.

RATIO: The privilege against disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those made in contemplation of
a crime or perpetuation of a fraud. A lawyer is not a gun for hire.

JUNIO v GRUPO
FACTS:

Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the redemption of a land belonging to her parents.
She gave P25,000 to be used in the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property and has
continuously refused to refund the money given.

Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct

Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore, and that since Junio knew that the
mortgage has already expired, she knew that it was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Atty. Grupo
then borrowed some of the money for himself to help defray his childrens educational expenses. (personal
request evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio Atty. Grupo contends that their families were really very
close and intimate with each other Junios sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo)

Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further contends that he did not ask for any fee,
not even charity. He claims that his services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he claims that he is willing to
pay, though)

IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless the
clients interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice and suspended him
indefinitely.

what he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and
transactions with his client. And that Atty Grupo did Not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified
to the use of the money, as evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupos
claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan

ISSUE: WoN Atty. Grupo violated Rule 16?

HELD: YES

RATIO:

What he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing
and transactions with his client. ( he did not give security for the loan and he refused to pay the amount)And
that Atty Grupo did not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of the money, as
evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupos claims that the money previously
entrusted to him was later converted into a loan

But in the dispositive portion, sabi he violated so ayun.

As to the contention that no atty- client relationship exists: it is not necessary that any retainer should have
been paid. All is needed is when a person consults with his atty in his professional capacity to obtain professional
advice.

Atty Grupo is suspended from practice of law for 1 month and to refund the money

UY v. GONZALES

FACTS: William S. Uy engaged the services of Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of their lawyerclient relationship. The complainant alleges: to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After
confiding with 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 Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. When
the petition was about to be filed,

respondent went to his (complainant

s) office at Virra Mall, Greenhills and demanded a certain amount from him other than what they had previously
agreed upon. Respondent left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was
shocked to find out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a
letter-complaint dated July 26, 1999 against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Tayug, Pangasinan for

Falsif

ication of Public Documents

The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the subject
matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have filed. Portions of said letter-complaint read: The

undersigned complainant accuses WILLIAM S. UY, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of 132-A Gilmore Street
corner 9th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, Michael Angelo T. UY, CRISTINA EARL T.UY, minors and residents of the
aforesaid address, Luviminda G. Tomagos, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of Carmay East, Rosales,
Pangasinan, and F. Madayag, with office address at A12, 2/F Vira Mall Shopping Complex, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro
Manila, for ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, committed as follows: That on March 15, 1996, William S.
Uy acquired by purchase a parcel of land consisting of 4.001 ha. for the amount of P100,000.00, Philippine Currency,
situated at Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan, from FERMIN C. GONZ

ALES, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed by the latter in favor of the former; that

in the said date, William S. Uy received the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-33122, covering the said land; That instead of
registering said Deed of Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-33122, in the Register of Deeds for the purpose of
transferring the same in his name, William S. Uy executed a Deed of Voluntary Land Transfer of the aforesaid land in favor
of his children, namely, Michael Angelo T. Uy and Cristina Earl T. Uy, wherein William S. Uy made it appear that his said
children are of legal age,and residents of Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan, when in fact and in truth, they are minors
and residents of Metro Manila, to qualify them as farmers/beneficiaries, thus placing the said property within the coverage
of the Land Reform Program; That the above-named accused, conspiring together and helping one another procured the
falsified documents which they used as supporting papers so that they can secure from the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Tayug, Pangasinan, TCT No. T-5165 (Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 004 32930) in favor of his above-named
children. Some of these Falsified documents are purported Affidavit of Seller/Transferor and Affidavit of Non-Tenancy, both
dated August 20, 1996, without the signature of

affiant, Fermin C. Gonzales, and that on that said date, Fermin C. Gonzales was already dead ;
That on December 17, 1998, William S. Uy with deceit and evident intent to defraud undersigned, still accepted the
amount of P340,000.00, from Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales, P300,000.00, in PNB Check No.

0000606, and P40,000.00, in cash, as full payment of the redemption of TCT No. 33122knowing fully well

that at that time the said TCT cannot be redeemed anymore because the same was already transferred in the name of his
children; That William S. Uy has appropriated the amount covered by the aforesaid check, as evidenced by the said

check which was encashed by him;

That inspite of repeated demands, both oral and in writing, William S. Uy refused and continue to refuse to deliver to him a
TCT in the name of the undersigned or to return and repay the said P340,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the
undersigned.[2]With the execution of the letter-complaint, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and
grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent unceremoniously turned against

him just because he refused to grant respondents request for additional compensation. Respondents act

tarnished his reputation and social standing.[3]

In compliance with this Courts Resolution dated July 31, 2000,[4] respondent filed his Comment

narrating his version, as follows:

On December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9 hectare-property situated in Brgy.Gonzales,
Umingan, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. T-33122 which the latter acquired by purchase from

his (respondents) son, the late Fermin C. Gonzales, Jr.. On the same date, he paid compla

inant P340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of TCT No. T-33122 as well as the execution of the Deed
of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant additional time to locate said title or until after Christmas to deliver the
same and execute the Deed of Redemption. After the said period, he went to

complainants office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of Redemption.

Instead, complainant gave him photocopies of TCT No. T-33122 and TCT No. T-5165. Complainant explained that he had
already transferred the title of the property, covered by TCT No.T-5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy and that TCT
No. T-5165 was misplaced and cannot be located despite efforts to locate it. Wanting to protect his interest over the
property coupled with his desire to get hold of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible time, he offered his assistance pro bono

to prepare a petition for lost title provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for
transportation and others, estimated at P20,000.00, will be shouldered by complainant. To these, complainant agreed.On
April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title ready for signing and notarization. On
April 14, 1999, he went

to complainants office informing him that the petition is

ready for filing and needs funds for expenses. Complainant who was with a client asked him to wait at the anteroom where
he waited for almost two hours until he found out that complainant had already

left without leaving any instructions nor funds for the filing of the petition. Complainants conduct

infuriated him which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he
prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition.Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client
relationship between him and complainant was terminated when he gave the handwritten letter to complainant; that there
was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of
public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from public
documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug, Pangasinan.Held: Practice of law embraces any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, as well as legal principles, practice or procedure and calls
for legal knowledge, training and experience.While it is true that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, complainant failed to prove any of the
circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the disbarment or suspension of herein respondent.

Notwithstanding respondents own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records reveals that

the relationship between complainant and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between them
rather than the practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with complainant only because he redeemed a
property which complainant had earlie

r purchased from his (complainants) son.

It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its title and execute
the Deed of Redemption. However, despite the period given to him, complainant failed to fulfill his end of the bargain
because of the alleged loss of the title which he had admitted to respondent as having prematurely transferred to his
children, thus prompting respondent to offer his assistance so as to secure the issuance of a new title to the property, in
lieu of the lost one, with complainant assuming the expenses therefor.As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to
exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or
trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the
client should have employed the attorney on any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid,promised or
charged for, neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent
to his profession.Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule cannot apply to the present case.

Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents filed

by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant.
Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the

land he has redeemed from complainant. Respondents immediate objective was to secure the title of the

property that complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and
complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction. The alleged
secrets of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit
-complaint.Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity
but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for
estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any

way, violating Canon 21.There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to
a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as
an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his
personal or proprietary interests. The administrative case filed against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales is DISMISSED for lack of merit

145 DOMINGO SR. v AQUINO

FACTS
Court of First Instance approved money claim of AQUINO against the
Estate of Domingo and ordered Administratrix STA MARIA to pay
P20,000 to AQUINO
Both parties appealed
CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI
Copies of the judgment were sent to ATTY UNSON through registered
mail
The new administratrix DE LOPEZ alleges the co-administratrix of STA
MARIA, ATTY DOMINGO, was removed from his trust by the intestate
courts order for having squandered cash so being the one (ATTY
DOMINGO) who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON, the removal of
ATTY DOMINGO is in effect the removal of ATTY UNSON as counsel of
the estate
DE LOPEZ prays that the clerk of court be directed to serve a copy of
the CA judgment on her counsel instead of ATTY UNSON
(In other words, yun court nagsend ng copy ng decision ng ca kay atty
unson pero sabi ng estate hindi valid yun pagsend ng notice kasi hindi na
nila lawyer si atty unson at the time notice was served)
ISSUE
WAS VALID
HELD

W/N SERVICE OF THE JUDGMENT ON ATTY UNSON

YES, EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT

THEIR LAWYER AT THE TIME COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS
SENT, ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF
DISCHARGE FILED WITH THE COURT MAKES JUDICIAL
NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD BINDING
UPON THE CLIENT

RATIO
Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF
DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such
counsel. Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the
estate, ATTY UNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the
estate.

Moreover, while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the
estate and for the former administrator when the intestate court granted his
motion to withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and
assumption of public office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota
Administration, this was true only as far as the intestate court was
concerned. He continued on record in the appellate court and did not file
any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that, no appearance of new
counsel for the estate was ever filed.
It follows that since notice and copy of the appellate courts decision were
served by registered mail on the estates counsel of record ATTY UNSON and
the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the first notice of the
postmaster, such service was deemed completed and effected and binding
upon the client, in this case the Estate of Domingo.
As to the contention that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means
removal of ATTY UNSON as the estates counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was
the one who engaged the services of ATTY UNSON, the fact that ATTY
UNSONS services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as
administrator, did not make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel. ATTY UNSON
continued to be authorized to represent the estate as its counsel until the
new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should terminate his services which
she never did.
Obando v Figueras
FACTS: Obando was appointed as respondent Eduardos co-administrator of the joint
estate of Jose and Dona Alegria Figueras. Obando and several other members of the
Obando clan was allegedly bequeathed a will of the properties left by the Figueras
couple including two parcels of land in Gilmore Avenue, New Manila, Quezon City. Upon
insistence of the respondent that the alleged will was a forgery, the will was submitted to
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination and found that the signatures
were not made by the same person which led to the indictment and conviction of
Obando for estafa through falsification of a public document.
Eduardo sold the lots to Amigo Realty Corporation on the strength of an Order issued by
the probate court on May 15,1991. On June 4, 1992, Petitioner Obando, in his capacity
as co-administrator and universal heir of Doa Alegria, filed a Complaint against
Eduardo and Amigo Realty for the nullification of the sale to the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 79. In Special Proceeding Nos. 61567 and 123948, the probate
court in its order dated December 17, 1997 removed Obando from his office as coadministrator of the estate. Consequently, on January 27, 1998 the respondents filed a
Joint Motion to Dismiss on the civil case to which the trial court granted themotion.
Obando then filed a Motion for Reconsideration to no avail. Then his Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus was dismissed and the dismissal order of the RTC was
affirmed. Petitioner then argues before the Supreme Court that the motion to dismiss

was invalid since at the time of the filing, Atty. Yuseco no longer represented the
respondents, as shown by Eduardos Manifestation and Motion dated January 8, 1998,
dispensing with said counsels services in the proceedings in view of a Compromise
Agreement with Petitioner Obando.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Yuseco ceased to be the defendants Counsel.
HELD:No.
Ratio: Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel in
accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Counsel may be validly
substituted only if the following requisites are complied with: (1) new counsel files a
written application for substitution; (2) the clients written consent is obtained; and (3)
the written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured, if it can still be.
Alfonso v Juanson
FACTS:
Complainant a doctor of medicine by profession filed with this court a sworn complaint charging the respondent
with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He accuses the respondent of maintaining illicit sexual
relations with his wife Sol Alfonso.
Complainant received a phone call from the wife of the respondent, Mrs. Juanson who informed him that Sol and
respondent judge have been carrying on an affair and that she has in her possession the love letters of Sol which
she wants to show to the complainant. When he told this to Sol, she denied it.
Sol and complainant left for the USA. Sol returned ahead of complainant. Mrs. Juansosn called up father of
complainant and divulged to the latter the illicit affair between respondent judge and Sol. The father of
complainant engaged the services of a private investigator who discovered that Sol, after arrival from USA met
with respondent judge at an apartment and stayed there for 3 hours.
Complainant upon knowing this, complainant confronted Sol. At first she denied it but later, however, admitted
having an illicit sexual affair with the judge.
Respondent judge denied the allegations and claimed that they have been communicating with each other casually
and innocently and not as lovers. He alleges that he came to know of Sol when Sol engaged his professional
services prior to appointment to the office of RTC judge.
ISSUE:
Is the judge guilty of the charge of immorality?
HELD: NO.
Ratio: It must be stressed that the respondent is not charged with immorality or misconduct committed before he
was appointed to the judiciary. As to the post-appointment period, we find the evidence for the complainant
insufficient to prove that the respondent and Sol continued their extramarital affair. In fact, no love notes were
presented during trial that are dated after the appointment. Proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be a basis for
his administrative discipline in this case. The respondent judge may have undergone moral reformation after his
appointment.
The imputation of the sexual acts upon the incumbent must be proven by substantial evidence, which is required in
admin cases. This the complainant failed to do.
However, judge should be held liable for becoming indiscreet. Such indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct
an appearance of impropriety. Respondent and
Sols meetings could incite suspicion of either the relationships continuance or revival. He violated Canons 3 and 2
requiring judges official conduct to be free from appearance of impropriety.
Sentence to fine of P2,000.

186 CASTILLO v CALANOG

Facts:
-

Issue:
Held:
-

In a sworn complaint filed with the SC, Emma Castillo charged Judge Manuel Calanog, Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, with immorality and conduct unbecoming of a public
official.
Castillo alleges that when she intervened for the intestate estate of her deceased husband, a friend of hers
referred her to Calanog who was supposedly going to help her.
Castillo also alleges that when she met with Calanog, the latter brought her to a motel and made sexual
advances on her. When she refused, she says that Calanog offered to her the proposition that he be her
sub-husband and that he would give Castillo his condominium unit in QC as well as provide financial
support for her two minor children and place them in an exclusive school for girls. Castillo agreed to such
a proposition. Their relationship also bore a son, who was allegedly named Jerome Christopher Calanog.
Castillo is now complaining that Calanog has reneged on his promise. She says that Calanog is not
anymore giving support, that her two children are not in an exclusive girls school and that Calanog has
failed to pay the monthly installments on the condominium.
While the complaint was being investigated on, Castillo filed an affidavit of desistance with the SC. She
was saying that everything in the complaint were all lies. However, the Court had two witnesses (Ernesto
Bustamante and Jose Javier) attesting to her earlier complaint. Plus, the National Bureau of Investigation
Intelligence Service, upon the instruction of the Court, carried out a discreet verification of the facts raised
in the testimonies and found them to be true.
W/n Calanog should be held liable despite the desistance of the complainant, Castillo.
YES and Calanog is dismissed from the roll of judges.

Ratio: Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when executed as an
afterthought, as in the case at bar. Even if Emma Castillo had not filed her "Affidavit of Desistance," the SC says
that they would not have been swayed solely by her allegations, and they actually found from the testimony of Jose
Javier that the Castillo's charges, indeed, rest on sufficient grounds.
It is of no import that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts of
concubinage having indeed existed and been committed. This is not a criminal case for concubinage but an
administrative matter that invokes the power of supervision of this Court over the members of the judiciary.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with
respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
It is worth noting here that the respondent judge, in violating a judicial precept, has also committed a grave
injustice upon the complainant, who had sought his assistance in expediting the intestate estate proceedings of her
deceased common-law husband. The judge, who was in the first place, prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct
from intervening in a case in any court, took advantage of the complainant's helplessness and state of material
deprivation and persuaded her to become his mistress. The exploitation of women becomes even more
reprehensible when the offender commits the injustice by the brute force of his position of power and authority, as
in this case.

Tomas Cabulisan v. Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan

Facts: Cabulisan filed an administrative complaint against respondent for grave misconduct
committed as follows : (1) peeping into the bathroom where Marilyn C. Dumayas, a public health
nurse, and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding, was then taking a bath;
(2) having a mistress in the neighboring town; and (3) allowing local practitioners to write
decisions for him.
Issue: WON Judge Pagalilauan is guilty of violating the CPR?

Held: Yes

Ratio: Respondent filed for voyeurism, other charges dismissed for lack of evidence. People
who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only be proficient in both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the
highest degree on integrity and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their
public and private lives. By committing the acts in question, respondent violated the trust
reposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality
required in the judicial profession.