You are on page 1of 5

Canon 18

Legarda dean coronel just filed his appearance as client’s counsel and after that, wala
na, causing the loss of client’s house and lot==> negligence plus rule 18.03

suspension for 6 months


Endaya case for unlawful detainer

PAO lawyer who didn’t file pleadings kasi he believed they were unnecessary

Suspension for 2 months kasi may mitigating circumstances like


1. sabi ng pet na the answer was prepared by a non-lawyer pero di naman
2.sabi ng pet na he had strong evidence to prove the prev. pets were not the
owners of the land anymore pero a list of baranggay officials lang naman
3. PAO has heavy load
Carandang obmina failed to inform pet na a decision was rendered na (talo resp) and
apparently, he moved to the states afterwards, BUT he was still the counsel
at the time

pet learned thru daughter who was asked in the courthouse kung san na kayo
nakatira

pet was at fault also for not visiting his office that much but still di pa rin
pinaalam ni resp na tapos na yung case

violated canon 18

suspended for 1 year


agot resp misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer pero hindi naman pala,
so cilent engaged him

it turns out na may connect lang pala sya sa US embassy (pineda) who
reneged on their agreement

liable coz of misrepresentation, di nya nakuha visa acc. to the contract, and
ayaw nya balik 350k remaining balance of contract

suspended for 2 years and ordered to return 350 k


francisco pet sued finezas for forceful entry (lawyer nila si resp). they lost so resp
prepared a MFR. he didn’t inform the finezas on time tho so when the writ of
execution of judgment was issued, the period to file for petition for relief of
judgment has already passed.
defense: menabilin ya i resp to his office to inform the finezas coz he was on
the states

punishment ==> 2 years kasi repeat offender


rules 10.01 and 10.03 and rule 18.03
Blanza resp volunteered to handle the pension claims of two widows so they
submitted documents in relation to this

resp refused give it back to them when they demanded them 6 years later
kasi he photostated them and the pets didn’t advance him the amount

wasn’t reprimanded or anything (kasalanan din naman ng pets), but


reminded resp that as a lawyer, he is held to higher standards
abay resp failed to submit an appellants brief in the CA, thus the court dismissed
the appeal

pets claimed resp negligently abandoned the appeal and failed to inform
them about it

his excuse: akala nya natransfer na yung prop in question to another party so
he didnt want to tax the CAs time anymore (dapat daw file a case against the
other party rather than to file the appeal)

guilty of violating 18.03 and 18.04

his cavalier attitude towards his client makes him unworthy of the trust
imposed upon him

if he was against a legal remedy rightly available to his client, he should have
just withdrrawn himself as counsel
Ramsical resp was pets lawyer in a land case. they won in the RTC so plaintiff appealed
to the CA. they lost in the CA but the resp failed to inform the pets (nalaman
nila thru their neighbors).

when the pets saw the resp, resp asked for 7k to file the MFR to the CA, but
he didnt comply with the engagement, causing the action to prescribe,
causing the loss of their land

penalty ==> 2 years


violated canon 17 and rules 18.03 and 18.04
plus di rin kasi nagrereply sa IBP so shows cavalier attitude towards the IBP
and the courts in general
Canon 19
Enriquez v. resp is pets counsel for a case for forcible entry. they lost since resp failed to
ladavia fiel the position paper resulting in pets being declared in default (rtc
dismissed the case since resp failed to file the appeal memorandum after
more than 71 days)

pet filed disbarment kasi resp causaed them great damage and prejudice

even aftet the court ordered resp to comment, he kept on asking for
extensions due to fortuitous events, family problems, and dark beings (a total
of 150 days were granted and 2 fines of 1k and 2k respectively)

ibp reco  disbarred kasi Malala na talaga  SC agreed

guilty 12.03, 18.03 and canon 11


di ginawa job for client (didn’t file appeal memo), bastos sa court, di nafifile
ng comments even after extensions

Chua v. de Resp was the opponents counsel in a collection case but resp kept on seeking
castro postponements of agreed hearing dates (it took more than 5 yrs to present
one witness amp)

Excuses include simple absences, unbacked medical issues, not being ready,
etc.

IBP  3 months punishment lang  SC reversed (ADMONISHED LANG)


Defense: self serving evidence presented by chua plus mentioned na he’s old
(70s), academe, etc.

Di na prove na resp engaged in unethical conduct (no malice naman yung


delay) to warrant admin libability
Yung delay sa court not solely attributable to de castro, kasi naallow naman
yung delays by pet or the court (plus court didn’t even punish him for
contempt)

Absences were sanctioned naman by the TC! (abroad for med treatment,
grad of son in U of cali)

Canon 20
Quirante v. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for confirmation of his attorney’s
IAC fees. Mentioned an oral agreement bet him and his client
- If narecover yung 120k, 30k yung fee
- If may damages in excess of 120k, divided bet heirs, him and atty. Cruz
RTC decision meted out in favor of plaintiff (rescinded the contractor contract
with guerrero, with PHILAMGEN as bondsman) so may writ of exec but resp
appealed to IAC to quash this writ and this was elevated to the SC

IAC decision: premature yung atty fees since the SC petition may or may not
ultimately results in granting the client the damages

SC confirmed : di pa final yung main case that would grant the damages to
the client  hold in abeyance muna

Tanhueco v. Resp was pets counsel and agreed on a contingent basis as the structure of
de Dumo their payment scheme

Pet filed disbarment case kasi ayaw ibalik yung amount resp collected from
debtors, refusal to retun documents (not proved) and abandoned cases daw

Pet said: that in addition to ayaw isurrender money collected despite


numerous demands, resp borrowed 5,300 pa raw

Resp: may 50% agreement daw pero he didn’t turn over 12k collected from
one debtor kasi pet refused to pay him (applied 12k to his fees)

SC  suspended for 6 months, ordered to return the 12k, 15% na lang yung
fees

Client-atty relationship: trust! Hold in trust lang dapat yung pera. Dapat the
resp did an accounting, and returned the money to pet minus his fees

Tho may lien yung lawyer sa atty, di excuse yung di pagbalik kasi the primary
duto of the lawyer is to render justice

Also, masyado mataas yung attys fees (halos 60% na yung cinocollent nya)
So quantum meruit basis na lang daw (under court’s powers pa rn yung
remuneration contract)
Albano Pet alleged that resp failed to expedite their case after the war was over so
they hired another lawyer. After, resp intervened to collect her attys fees (1/3
daw of damages as evidenced by a letter)

They even accused resp of forging the letter (later hindi pala kasi res judicata
na)

Resps answer: meron talagang contract, plus she showed proof na she filed
more that 20 papers and pleadings and went to court and shit and even
obtained a favorable judgment
OSG  found that she served client for 7 years faithfully and competently tas
the client was trying to deprive her after she had already won the case amp

SC sided with resp


Proved naman na the contract was genuine and she really did serve client
well

Lawyers have right to be compenstated for services kasi daming time and
money to be a lawyer

Nabastos pa good name ni resp


Metrobank Resp is lawyer for metrobank who caused the annotation of his charging lien
on the mortgaged prop in question

You might also like