Class Digest - Legal Ethics PDF

Failure of the client to pay the lawyer in full amount.
In reply, complainant denied that she did not give the full
payment of the filing fee and asserted that the filing fee at that
time amounted only to P7,836.60.
Pichon vs Agleron
A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014
MENDOZA, J.
Facts: Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez
(complainant) was the widow of the late Felipe Domiguez who
died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental,
involving a dump truck owned by the Municipality of Caraga.
Aggrieved, complainant decided to file charges against the
Municipality of Caraga and engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. (Atty. Agleron). Atty.
Agleron requested and received from complainant a total
amount of P10,050.00 for the payment of filing fees and
sheriffs fees. After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no
complaint was filed by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of
Caraga.
Atty. Agleron admitted that complainant engaged his
professional service and received the amount of P10,050.00.
He, however, explained that their agreement was that
complainant would pay the filing fees and other incidental
expenses and as soon as the complaint was prepared and
ready for filing, complainant would pay 30% of the agreed
attorneys fees of P100,000.00. After the signing of the
complaint, he advised the complainant to pay in full the
amount of the filing fee and sheriffs fees and the 30% of the
attorneys fee, but complainant failed to do so, Atty. Agleron
averred that since the complaint could not be filed in court, the
amount of P10,050.00 was deposited in a bank while awaiting
the payment of the balance of the filing fee and attorneys fee.
3G AY 2015-2016
SAN BEDA COLLEGE MENDIOLA
In the Report and Recommendation, the Investigating

Commissioner found Atty. Agleron to have violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility when he neglected a legal
matter entrusted to him, and recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of four (4)
months.
In a Resolution, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with
modification that Atty. Agleron be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of only one (1) month.
Respondents contention: Atty. Agleron admitted his failure
to file the complaint against the Municipality of Caraga, Davao
Oriental, despite the fact that it was already prepared and
signed. He attributed his non-filing of the appropriate charges
on the failure of complainant to remit the full payment of the
filing fee and pay the 30% of the attorneys fee.
Issue: W/N Atty. Agleron was correct in not filing the
complaint because he has not been paid in full.
Held: No.
Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that:
PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS
ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ
Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted

to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty
bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend
to his clients cause with diligence, care and devotion
regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed on him.
The contention of respondent is not a valid excuse that would
exonerate him from liability. As stated, every case that is
entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full attention whether he
accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that complainant
had not remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should
have found a way to speak to his client and inform him about
the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the complaint.
Atty. Agleron obviously lacked professionalism in dealing with
complainant and showed incompetence when he failed to file
the appropriate charges.
In a number of cases, the Court held that a lawyer should
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his
negligence renders him liable for disciplinary action such as
suspension ranging from three months to two years. In this
case, the Court finds the suspension of Atty. Agleron from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) months
sufficient.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
3G AY 2015-2016
Rule XI of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Revocation of

Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions
Dizon vs. Cabucana
A.C. No. 10185, March 12, 2014
MENDOZA, J.:
Facts: In his petition, Lucerio Dizon, complainant, alleged that
he was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned
by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, who were parties
in Civil Case No. 1-689 filed before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch I, Santiago City (MTCC); that on November 6,
2003, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in
the said case and notarized before Atty. Cabucana on the same
date it was signed at the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted
on December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution and the
veracity of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein
testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of
MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary
Public; that because of the irregularity in the due execution of
the Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in the
resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused
damage and injury to complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated
the Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the absence of
most of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be
sanctioned in accordance with Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Code and Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the complaint was
intended to harass him because he was the private prosecutor
in a criminal case filed against complainant before the MTCC;
that complainant had no cause of action as his right was not
violated because he was just a "would be" buyer and not a party
to the compromise agreement; and that complainant would not
suffer any damage by the pendency of the case or by any
defects obtaining in the notarization of the compromise

agreement.
The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Cabucana
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended as
Notary Public for a period of two (2) years and from the practice
of law for six (6) monthThe IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner with modification that Atty.
Cabucana be suspended for only six (6) months for violation of
his obligation as Notary Public.
On motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors, in
a Resolution, modified its earlier resolution and suspended Atty.
Cabucana from the practice of law for one (1) month and
disqualified him from re-appointment as notary public for one (1)
year.
Issue: Whether Atty Cabucana is guilty of violating Rule
1.01, Canon I of the CPR
Held: Yes. The Court agrees with the recommendation of
the IBP Board of Governors except as to the penalty.
Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the
Notarial Law states:
The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an
officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place
where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking
the acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him
and that he is the same person who executed it,
acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
3G AY 2015-2016
certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is

required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall
so state.
The requirement of affiant's personal appearance was further
emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial
Practice of 2004 which provides that:
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved
as signatory to the instrument or document
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.
As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a
document unless the person who signs it is the same person
executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the
truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act
and deed.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino
Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon l of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months,
REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years, effective immediately, with a stern WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
LAWYER FILED THE APPELLANTS BRIEF FOR HIS

CLIENT 95 DAYS LATE; SUSPENDED FOR ONE MONTH
Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr. vs Atty.
Diosdado Jimenez
A.C. NO. 9116; March 12, 2014
Villarama, Jr., J:
FACTS: On January 7, 1993, the Spouses Federico and
Victoria Santander filed a civil suit for damages against the
Congressional Village Homeowners Association and Ely
Mabanag in his capacity as President of the Association and in
his personal capacity before the QC Regional Trial Court
(RTC) for building a concrete wall which abutted their property
and denied them of their right of way. The Law Firm of
Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and Associates was the legal
counsel for the Association, with respondent as the counsel of
record and handling lawyer.
After trial and hearing, the RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses
Santander. The Association, represented by said law firm
appealed to the CA which dismissing the appeal on the ground
that the original period to file the appellants brief had expired
95 days even before the first motion for extension of time to
file said brief was filed. The CA also stated that the grounds
adduced for the said motion as well as the six subsequent
motions for extension of time to file brief were not meritorious.
The CA resolution became final.
Eight years later or on April 11, 2007, herein complainants
Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr., as members of
the Association, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against
respondent before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD)
3G AY 2015-2016
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

particularly Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon 17; and Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 thereof for his negligence in handling the appeal
and wilful violation of his duties as an officer of the court.
Respondent denied liability and claimed that although his law
firm represented the Association, the case was actually
handled by an associate lawyer in his law office. He also
alleged that the disbarment case was only filed in retaliation
because Atty. Jimenez had defeated complainant Figueras in
the election for Presidency in the Association. Atty. Jimenez
added that complainants have no personality to file the
disbarment complaint as they were not his clients; hence,
there was likewise no jurisdiction over the complaint on the
part of the IBP-CBD.
The Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to suspend Atty.
Jimenez from the practice of law for six (6) months for his
breach of Rule 12.03, Canon 12, Canon 17, Rule 18.03 and
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his
subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence,
this petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP correctly found Atty. Jimenez
administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
RULING: YES.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the
responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost
diligence. In failing to file the appellants brief on behalf of his
client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel
as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the
Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the same
Code also states that:
suit was merely instituted to harass him. The procedural

requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only
the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in
disbarment cases. In fact, the person who called the attention
of the court to a lawyers misconduct "is in no sense a party,
and generally has no interest in the outcome.
Canon 18A lawyer shall serve his client with competence

and diligence.
The petition is DENIED but his suspension from the practice of

law has been reduced to one (1) month.
Rule 18.03.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND DECEIT
Records show that respondent filed the first motion for

extension of time to file appellants brief 95 days after the
expiration of the reglementary period to file said brief, thus
causing the dismissal of the appeal of the homeowners
association. To justify his inexcusable negligence, respondent
alleges that he was merely the supervising lawyer and that the
fault lies with the handling lawyer. His contention, however, is
belied by the records for we note that respondent had filed
with the CA an Urgent Motion for Extension, which he himself
signed on behalf of the law firm, stating that a previous motion
had been filed but "due to the health condition of the
undersigned counselhe was not able to finish said
Appellants Brief within the fifteen (15) day period earlier
requested by him." Thus, it is clear that respondent was
personally in charge of the case.
The Court finds no merit in respondents contention that
complainants have no personality to file a disbarment case
against him as they were not his clients and that the present
3G AY 2015-2016
ADELIA V. QUIACHON vs. ATTY. JOSEPH ADORA RAMOS

A.C. No. 9317, June 4, 2014
SERENO, CJ:
FACTS: Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos represented
complainant, who was then the plaintiff in a labor case filed
before the NLRC and in a special proceeding case filed before
the R TC. The Labor Arbiter granted complainant a favorable
decision. Upon appeal, it was reversed and set aside by the
NLRC. NLRC also denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by respondent on complainant's behalf. A Petition for Certiorari
was filed before the CA, but it affirmed the NLRC's reversal of
the LA's Decision.
After the Petition was filed before the CA, complainant would
always ask respondent about the status of her case. The latter
always told her that there was no decision yet. Sometime in
August 2011, while complainant was in respondents office
waiting for him to arrive, she noticed a mailman delivering an

envelope with the title of her labor case printed thereon.
Complainant asked the secretary of respondent to open the
envelope and was surprised to discover that it contained the
Entry of Judgment of the CAs Decision. Thereafter,
complainant tried repeatedly to contact respondent, but to no
avail. When she finally got to talk to him, respondent assured
her that "it was alright" as they still had six months to appeal
the case to the Supreme Court. After that final meeting, no
updates on the labor case were ever communicated to
complainant.
With respect to the special proceeding case, the RTC of
Roxas City dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed, but it was also denied. Once again,
respondent did nothing to reverse the RTC Decision.
Complainant filed the instant disbarment Complaint against
respondent. Respondent averred that complainant was
informed of the status of the case. He claimed that he had told
complainant that he "cannot cite any error of law or abuse of
discretion on the part of the CAs decision that necessitates a
Petition for Review with the Supreme Court;" thus, he
supposedly advised her to "respect the decision of the Court of
Appeals."
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. During the pendency of the proceedings,
complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint.
3G AY 2015-2016
IBP Commissioner Almeyda declared that respondent had

been remiss in failing to update complainant in what had
happened to the cases being handled by respondent in behalf
of complainant. However, in spite of finding neglect on
respondents part, he recommended the dismissal of the case
against him, stating that "with the decision to withdraw the
complaint, there does not appear basis to go ahead with the
proceedings since without the complaint, there will be no basis
to make any finding of liability." The case against respondent
was dismissed with a warning that a repetition of the same act
shall be dealt with more severely.
ISSUE: W/N the case is properly withdrawn despite finding

respondent guilty of gross negligence and deceit in violation of
Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: No. The withdrawal of a disbarment case against a
lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP
and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding
against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine
Bar.
The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to
the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention
of the Court. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for
determination in these proceedings is whether or not the
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a
member of the bar. Public interest is the primary objective. We
explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, viz.:
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly

executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the
respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by
the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
has been duly proven x x x. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged
misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in
the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on
record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or
disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his
withdrawal of the charges x x x.
In this case, the IBP found that respondent violated Canon
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Thus, it should have imposed the appropriate
penalty despite the desistance of complainant or the
withdrawal of the charges.
The failure of respondent to file an appeal from the CA
Decision without any justifiable reason deserves sanction.
Lawyers who disagree with the pursuit of an appeal should
properly withdraw their appearance and allow their client to
retain another counsel.
In the present case, respondent failed not only to keep the
client informed of the status of the case, but also to avail of the
proper legal remedy that would promote the client's cause. It is
clear that respondent neglected the case entrusted to him.
3G AY 2015-2016
All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause. Regardless of

their personal views, they must present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.
Whenever lawyers take on their clients' cause/s, they covenant
that they will exercise due diligence in protecting the client's
rights; their failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes them
unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their client/s and
make them answerable to the client, the courts and society.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos is found GUILTY
of negligence and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act will
be dealt with more severely.
LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH NOT A GROUND

FOR DISBARMENT
Atty. Alan Paguia v. Atty. Manuel Molina
A.C. No. 9881, June 4, 2014
Sereno, CJ.
FACTS: The Respondent, Atty. Manuel Molina was charged

by petitioner Atty. Alan Paguia of the administrative Complaint
for DISHONESTY for allegedly advising his clients to enforce a
contract on the complaints client who had never been a party
to the agreement. The Investigating Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez recommended the dismissal for lack of merit which
was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty Paguia filed
a motion for reconsideration which was denied. No petition for
review has been filed with the Supreme Court. Nonetheless,

the Court rendered a decision.
The case involves a conflict between neighbours in a four-unit
compound named Times Square at Times Street, Quezon
City. The clients of Atty. Molina, Mr. and Mrs. Lim, entered into
a contract with the other unit owners except Mr. Abreu, client
of Atty. Paguia regarding the common right of way, parking
areas and security. Since, the client of petitioner was not a
party to the agreement, it should not be binding as to him.
Later on, the parties were involved in cases relating to the
agreement. Atty. Paguia then charged Atty. Molina with
providing legal advice to the latters clients to the effect that
the agreement is binding on complainants client, Mr. Abreu,
who was not a signatory to the agreement.
Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide his clients

legal advice, he still cannot be held administratively liable
without any showing that his act was attended with bad faith or
malice. An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law.
For an honest mistake or error, an attorney is not liable. Chief
Justice Abbott said that, no attorney is bound to know all the
law; God forbid that it should be imagined that an attorney or a
counsel, or even a judge, is bound to know all the law.
The default rule is presumption of good faith. On the other
hand, bad faith is never presumed and should be proven. In
this case, there is no evidence to show that the legal advice,
assuming it was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith,
malice, or ill-will. The presumption of good faith, therefore,
stands in this case.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Molina guilty of dishonesty?

HELD: NO. Although, no appeal was filed, the Supreme Court
adopted the resolution of IBP Board dismissing the complaint.
There are two things to be considered in administrative cases
against lawyers: quantum of proof, which requires clearly
preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the
complaint.
In the present case, the allegation of giving legal advice is
without factual basis. The complaint was not substantiated in
this case, either in the complaint or in the corresponding
hearings. Nowhere do the records state that Atty. Paguia saw
respondent giving the legal advice to the clients of the latter.
Bare allegations are not proof.
3G AY 2015-2016
FALSE DECLARATION IN CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN
MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED
BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, AND MELINDA D.
SIOTING VS. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO
A.C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
FACTS: Complainants in this case individually purchased

housing units from Rudex International Development Corp.
(Rudex). However, due to several inadequacies and
construction defects in the housing units and the subdivision
itself, complainants sought the rescission of their respective
contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory

Board (HLURB). There were 2 batches of rescission cases
filed by complainants on different dates. Judgments of default
were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch of
rescission cases.
HLURB, dismissed Rudexs complaints for rescission and

ejectment on the ground that its statements in the certifications
against forum shopping attached thereto were false due to the
existence of similar pending cases in violation of Section 5,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
Rudex then filed 3 petitions for review before the HLURB and
in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
said petitions, Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes,
and legal counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not
commenced or has knowledge of any similar action or
proceeding involving the same issues pending before any
court, tribunal or agency this, notwithstanding the fact that
Rudex, previously filed an ejectment case against Sioting and
her husband before the MTC. Several other cases for
rescission and ejectment were later filed by Atty. Nazareno,
and as in the previous cases, the certifications against forum
shopping attached thereto likewise stated the same statement
and in 1 case, Atty. Nazareno himself notarized the
certification against forum shopping.
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the

suspension of Atty. Nazareno for a period of six (6) months for
his administrative violations.
Complainants filed an administrative complaint for disbarment

against respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno, charging him
with making false declarations in the certifications against
forum shopping subject of this case in disregard of Section 5,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary
public since he only assigned 1 document number (i.e., Doc.
No. 1968) in all the certifications against forum shopping that
were separately attached to the six (6) complaints for
rescission and ejectment.
3G AY 2015-2016
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the

Investigating Commissioners Report and Recommendation,
but modified the recommended penalty from a suspension of
six (6) months to only one (1) month.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held

administratively liable and accordingly suspended for a period
of one (1) month.
HELD: YES. The Court affirms the IBPs findings with

modification as to the penalty imposed.
Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission
of false entries in a certification against forum shopping
constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects
the erring counsel to the corresponding administrative and
criminal actions.
Failure to comply with such requirements shall not be curable

by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
after hearing. The submission of a false certification or noncompliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered
as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) which read
as follows:
CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
In this case, Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as
Rudexs counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for review
3G AY 2015-2016
assailing the judgments of default rendered in the first batch of

rescission cases without disclosing in the certifications against
forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case it filed
against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related to the
complainants rescission cases. Further, on January 29, 2004,
Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for
rescission and ejectment against Sps. Sioting without
disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the
existence of Siotings May 24, 2002 rescission complaint
against Rudex as well as Rudexs own September 9, 2002
ejectment complaint also against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April
1, 2004, Atty. Nazareno, once more filed rescission and
ejectment complaints against the other complainants in this
case without disclosing in the certifications against forum
shopping the existence of complainants own complaints for
rescission.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat, a penalty of six (6) months
suspension from the practice of law was imposed against the
lawyer therein who was shown to have deliberately made false
and untruthful statements in one of his pleadings. Given that
Atty. Nazarenos infractions are of a similar nature, but
recognizing further that he, as may be gleaned from the
foregoing discussion, had repetitively committed the same, the
Court hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year.
Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of
malpractice as a notary public, considering that he assigned
only one document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the
certifications against forum shopping attached to the six (6)
April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment despite
the fact that each of them should have been treated as a

separate notarial act.
It is a standing rule that for every notarial act, the notary shall
record in the notarial register at the time of the notarization,
among others, the entry and page number of the document
notarized, and that he shall give to each instrument or
document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register. Evidently,
Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule. Worse,
Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum
shopping attached to all the aforementioned complaints, fully
aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e.,
that Rudex had not commenced any actions or proceedings or
was not aware of any pending actions or proceedings involving
the same issues in any other forum.
The administrative liability of an erring notary public in this
respect was clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code in the case of Heirs of the Late Spouses
Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio, to wit:
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of

a false statement or information contained in the instrument to
be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it,
the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial
documents diminished. In this case, respondents conduct
amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
3G AY 2015-2016
Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the

land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which
proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document
containing false statements had his notarial commission
revoked and was disqualified from being commissioned as
such for a period of one (1) year.
Thus, for his malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont
to additionally impose the same penalties of such nature
against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions
on this front, coupled with his willful malfeasance in
discharging the office, the Court deems it proper to revoke his
existing commission and permanently disqualify him from
being commissioned as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is
found GUILTY of making false declarations in the certifications
against forum shopping subject of this case, as well as
malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public
and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby
REVOKED.
Demand for and receipt of exorbitant sums of money from

her client purportedly to expedite the proceedings of their
case which was pending before the court.
AMADO T. DIZON vs. ATTY. NORLITA DE TAZA
A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014
REYES, J.:
Facts: Amado Dizon (complainant) alleged that sometime in
February 2005, he, along with his siblings engaged the
services of Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates to represent
them in the case of Eliza T. Castaneda, et al. v. Heirs of
Spouses Martin and Lucia Dizon The complainant claimed that
sometime in February 2007, Atty. De Taza demanded the sum
of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) from him to
expedite the proceedings before the Court. This amount was
over and above the parties stipulated retainer fee as
evidenced by a contract. According to the complainant,
unknown to him at that time was that, a month earlier, Atty. De
Taza had already demanded and received a total of Eight
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) from his sibling
Aurora Dizon, for the same reason that Atty. De Taza
proffered to him, which was to expedite the proceedings of
their case before the Court. Handwritten receipts signed by
one Atty. Norlita De Taza were submitted by the complainant.
He also attached several affidavits and documents from other
individuals who attested that Atty. De Taza issued bouncing
checks and/or failed to pay off her debts to them.
On October 24, 2007, the complainant went to this Court in
Padre Faura, Manila and learned that the Court had already
denied the petition on November 20, 2006, contrary to Atty. De
3G AY 2015-2016
Tazas representations that the case was still pending. He tried

to communicate with Atty. De Taza, but she could no longer be
found. Thereafter, on November 6, 2007, the complainant
instituted a complaint for disbarment against Atty. De Taza. On
November 14, 2007, the complainant through a letter informed
the Court that Atty. De Taza is planning to leave the country as
she was joining her husband in the United States of America
(U.S.A.).
In a Resolution dated December 10, 2007, Atty. De Taza was
required by the Court to file a Comment. However, the copy of
the Resolution was returned unserved with the postal carriers
notation "RTS (Return to Sender)-Moved". The Court then
resolved to send a copy to Atty. De Tazas office address at
Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates. Said copy was also
returned unserved with the notation "RTS-not connected."
It was then required that the complainant inform the Court of
Atty. De Tazas new address, which the complainant faithfully
complied with by giving Atty. De Tazas new address in the
U.S.A.. Like the previous occasions, the copy of the Resolution
with the complaint was returned; this time, with the postal
carriers notation "RTS-Unclaimed". The Court held that the said
copy of the Resolution was deemed served and resolved to
consider Atty. De Taza as having waived the filing of her
comment. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline recommended that Atty. De Taza be suspended for a
period of two years from the practice of law. The IBP Board of
Governors modified the Commission on Bar Disciplines
recommendation in a Resolution and suspended her from the

practice of law for ONE YEAR.
reprehensible and her greed more than apparent when she

even used the name of the Court to defraud her client.
ISSUE: WHETHER ATTY. DE TAZA SHOULD BE HELD

ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR ISSUING BOUNCING
CHECKS, DEMANDING AND/OR RECEIVING MONEY FROM
HER CLIENTS UNDERTHE GUISE OF HAVING THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EXPEDITED
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a

particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money was spent
for that particular purpose. And if he does not use the
money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must
immediately return the money to his client. In this case, the
purpose for which Atty. De Taza demanded money is baseless
and non-existent. Thus, her demand should not have even been
made in the first place.
RULING: Based on the documentary evidence submitted by the

complainant, it appears that Atty. De Taza manifested a
propensity for borrowing money, issuing bouncing checks and
incurring debts which she left unpaid without any reason. The
complainant even submitted a document evidencing Atty. De
Tazas involvement in an estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) No. 22 case. Such conduct, while already offputting when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more
abhorrent when the same is exhibited by a member of the Bar.
As a lawyer, Atty. De Taza must remember that she is not only
a symbol but also an instrument of justice, equity and fairness.
We have held that the issuance of checks which were later
dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and
confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal
honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of
public confidence. Atty. De Tazas actuations towards the
complainant and his siblings were even worse as she had the
gall to make it appear to the complainant that the proceedings
before the Court can be expedited and ruled in their favor in
exchange for an exorbitant amount of money. Said scheme was
employed by Atty. De Taza just to milk more money from her
clients. Without a doubt, Atty. De Tazas actions are
3G AY 2015-2016
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for
the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer for any of the
following: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in
office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7)
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and
(8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority
to do so.
"Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is
bestowed only upon individuals who are competent
intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally.
Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system,
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty
and integrity in a manner beyond reproach." All told, the Court
holds that there is no reason to deviate from the report and
recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
which is to suspend Atty. De Taza from the practice of law for
two years.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Norlita De Taza is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO YEARS with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Various instances of misconduct in the performance of

his duties.
SAMONTE vs ABELLANA
A.C. No. 3452, June 23, 2014
BERSAMIN, J.:
Facts: On February 16, 1990, complainant Henry E. Samonte
brought this administrative complaint against respondent Atty.
Gines N. AbelJana who had represented him as the plaintiff in
Civil Case No. CEB-6970 entitled Capt. Henry E. Samonte v.
Authographics, Inc., and Nelson Yu of the Regional Trial Court
in Cebu City. In the administrative complaint, Samonte
enumerated the serious acts of professional misconduct by Atty.
Abellana, to wit: (1) Falsification of documents, when Atty.
Abellana made it appear that he had filed Civil Case No. CEB6970 on June 10, 1988, conformably with their agreement,
although the complaint was actually filed on June 14, 1988; (2)
Dereliction of duty, when Atty. Abellana failed to: (a) file the
reply vis--vis the answer with counterclaim, with his omission
having delayed the pre-trial of the case; (b) inform the trial court
beforehand that Samonte could not be available on a scheduled
hearing, thereby incurring for the plaintiffs side an unexplained
absence detrimental to Samonte as the plaintiff; and (c) submit
an exhibit required by the trial judge, only to eventually submit
it three months later; (3) Gross negligence and tardiness in
3G AY 2015-2016
attending the scheduled hearings; and (4) Dishonesty for not

issuing official receipts for every cash payments made by
Samonte for his court appearances and his acceptance of the
case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Abellana is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility as the Counsel of the
petitioner?
HELD: YES. In his dealings with his client and with the courts,
every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity,
and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and
demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens of every
member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been given full
expression in the Lawyers Oath that every lawyer of this
country has taken upon admission as a bona fide member of
the Law Profession.
By the Lawyers Oath is every lawyer enjoined not only
to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any
falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of
any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the Law,
and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be
an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a
coincidence, therefore, that honesty, integrity and
trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
VIOLATION OF NOTARIAL PRACTICE LAW

Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P.
Baliga
A.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2013
Corona, J.
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan
against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and
Jimmy Baliga on November16, 2000. Complainant alleged
that respondents both as notaries public falsified certain public
documents, as follows:
1. A complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by
Isaac Villegas against complainant with the RTC of
Tuguegarao. Respondent Calubaquib signed the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping of
the complainant as notary public and entered the same
as Doc. No. 182, Page No. 38, Book No. CLXXII,
Series of 1996, which according to the National
Archives that such document number actually pertains
to an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao,
2. A special power of attorney dated September 10, 1996
executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondent
Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to enter into a
compromise agreement under such terms and
conditions acceptable to him which was notarized by
respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548, Page
No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which
according to respondent Baligas notarial register, such
document number pertains to an affidavit of loss of one
Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996.
3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for and in
Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent Baliga, which was
3G AY 2015-2016
notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his

notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book
No. CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register
BookNo. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered
there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was acancellation
of real estate mortgage dated January 11, 1996.
In his answer, respondent Baliga admitted the incorrectness of
the entries and simply attributed them to the inadvertence in
good faith of his secretary to whom he had left the task of
entering all his notarial documents.
Respondent Calubaquibs comment, howevever, questioned
the complainant's motives. He also stated that complainant
had filed a case for falsification of documents against him with
the Ombudsman but it was dismissed.
In the end, however, he (like his co-respondent Baliga)
admitted to the mistaken entries and also ascribed the same to
his legal assistants. Similarly, by way of defense, he pointed
out that the Notarial Law provides that only contracts need to
have their copies included in thenotarial records. It does not
require affidavits, verifications or subscriptions of petitions
which are mere allegations of facts to be entered in the
NotarialRegister, despite widespread practice to the contrary.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial
Practice Law .
HELD: Yes. Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga violated the
Notarial Practice Law
It is abundantly clear that the notary public is personally
accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Section 245
of the Notarial Law provides that every notary public shall keep
a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record
shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall
supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to
any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore.
Section 246 of the same law also provides that the notary
public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the
nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to,
or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the
signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of
the instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as
notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a
contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his
records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief
description of the substance thereof and shall give to each
entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in
each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on
the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the
same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the failure of
the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by
law shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance,
be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the
violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their
secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists
despite our opencondemnation.
3G AY 2015-2016
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but

one invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as
notaries public.The protection of that interest necessarily
requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must
beprevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the
courts and the administrative offices in general. Notarization
by a notary public converts a private document into a public
one and makes it
admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must therefore observe
utmost care with respect to the basic requirements of their
duties.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo
I. Calubaquib and Atty.Jimmy P. Baliga are hereby found guilty
of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of their lawyers oath. Hence, both
resopndents are suspended for one year.
NOTARIAL PRACTICE: MISCONDUCT AND GRIEVOUS
VIOLATION OF OATH AS A NOTARY PUBLIC
Mercedita de Jesus v. Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit
A.C. No. 64701
July 8, 2014
Sereno, CJ
FACTS: In the Affidavit-Complaint filed by complainant before
the Office of the Bar Confidant on 23 June 2004, she alleged
that on 1 March 2002, respondent had drafted and notarized a
Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall that falsely
named the former as its absolute and registered owner. As a
result, the mortgagee sued complainant for perjury and for
collection of sum of money. Prior thereto, respondent had also
notarized two contracts that caused complainant legal and

financial problems. One contract was a lease agreement
notarized by respondent without the signature of the lessees.
The other contract was a sale agreement over a property
covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).
Respondent drafted and notarized said agreement, but did not
advise complainant that the property was still covered by the
period within which it could not be alienated.
In her Comment, respondent explained that the mortgage
contract was prepared in the presence of complainant.
However, complainant urgently needed the loan proceeds so
the contract was hastily done. It was only copied from a similar
file in respondents computer, and the phrase "absolute and
registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. Still, it
should not be a cause for disciplinary action, because
complainant constructed the subject public market stall under
a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract with the local
government unit and, technically, she could be considered its
owner. Moreover, the cause of the perjury charge against
complainant was not the representation of herself as owner of
the mortgaged property, but her guarantee that it was free
from all liens and encumbrances.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the
immediate revocation of the Notarial Commission of
respondent and her disqualification as notary public for two
years for her violation of her oath as such by notarizing
documents without the signatures of the parties who had
purportedly appeared before her. The IBP Board of Governors,
unanimously adopted and approved the recommendation, with
3G AY 2015-2016
the modification that respondent be suspended from the

practice of law for one year.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent is guilty of misconduct and
grievous violation of her oath as a notary public?
HELD: Yes. The important role a notary public performs
cannot be overemphasized. The Court has repeatedly
stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless
routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest.
Notarization converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason
that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his notarial duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized
document would be undermined.
Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of
a false statement or information contained in the instrument to
be notarized, yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the
Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
process may be undermined, and public confidence in notarial
documents diminished. In this case, respondent fully knew that
complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall.
That complainant comprehended the provisions of the real
estate mortgage contract does not make respondent any less
guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latters liability for tolerating
a wrongful act. Clearly, respondents conduct amounted to a
breach of Canon 122 and Rules 1.0123 and 1.0224 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondents explanation about the unsigned lease
agreement executed by complainant sometime in September
199925 is incredulous. If, indeed, her file copy of the
agreement bore the lessees signatures, she could have given
complainant a certified photocopy thereof. It even appears that
said lease agreement is not a rarity in respondents practice as
a notary public. Records show that on various occasions from
2002 to 2004, respondent has notarized 22 documents that
were either unsigned or lacking signatures of the parties.
Technically, each document maybe a ground for disciplinary
action, for it is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a
document be signed in his or her presence.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the

persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it
and who personally appeared before the said notary public to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
Thus, in acknowledging that the parties personally came and
appeared before her, respondent also violated Rule 10.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as a
lawyer that she shall do no falsehood. Certainly, respondent is
unfit to continue enjoying the solemn office of a notary public.
In several instances, the Court did not hesitate to disbar
lawyers who were found to be utterly oblivious to the solemnity
of their oath as notaries public.30 Even so, the rule is that
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and the Court will not disbar a lawyer where
3G AY 2015-2016
a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.31

The blatant disregard by respondent of her basic duties as a
notary public warrants the less severe punishment of
suspension from the practice of law and perpetual
disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit is
found guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as her
oath as notary public. Hence, she is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for ONE YEAR effective immediately. Her
notarial commission, if still existing, is IMMEDIATELY
REVOKED and she is hereby PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as a notary public.
Lawyers who have been suspended.

A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him
by his client and of the public confidence in the legal
profession.
MELODY R. NERY, complainant, vs. ATTY. GLICERIO A.
SAMPANA, respondent.
A.C. No. 10196, 9 September 2014, 734 SCRA 486
J. Carpio
FACTS: This is a disbarment complaint filed by Melody R.

Nery (Nery) against Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana (Sampana) for
failing to file the petition for adoption despite receiving his legal
fees and for making Nery believe that the petition was already
filed.
In June 2008, Nery engaged the services of Sampana for the

annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien
adopter. The petitioner for the annulment of marriage was
eventually granted and Nery paid Sampana Php 200,000. For
the adoption, Nery stated in her verified complaint that on
2009, Nery was led to believe by Sampana that the petition for
adoption was filed and under going publication with Branch 11
of Malolos, Bulacan, after Sampana has advised and provided
for a blurred marriage certificate of her aunt with the alien
adopter, but when Nery went to the said Court to ask for an
update, she was informed that no such case was filed and/or
pending with the court. Nery then confronted Sampana to
return the Php 100,000.00 paid for the failure to file the
adoption case but Sampana wanted to deduct Php 12,000.00
filing fee despited not having filed any case.
Sampana, on his position paper posits that Nery paid a one
package fee for both of Nerys cases. Further, that Nery
could have mistaken the annulment proceedings due to her
insistence of being adopted despite Sampanas wariness with
proceeding with the adoption case because of the alien
adopters old age, civil status and nationality. Relatively,
Sampana has already prepared the papers for the filing of the
adoption case but because of the lack of the certification of the
marriage certificate provided for he cannot proceed with the
filing.
IBPs Report
Commissioner Antiquiera recommended to have Sampana
suspended for 3 month from the practice of law for malpractice
of law. This recommendation is then adopted and approved
such recommendation with modification with the order of
return of the Php 100,000 to Nery.
3G AY 2015-2016
Issue: 1. Whether or not Sampana is guilty of malpractice of

law.
2.Whether or not the recommendation of the IBP is proper
Held:
1.
Yes, Sampana is guilty of malpractice of law.
CANON 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
CANON 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity
to the clients cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer
deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
regardless of importance. A lawyer also owes it to the court,
their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair.
In the present case, Sampana admitted that he
received one package fee for both cases of annulment and
adoption. Despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed to
file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due
diligence and candor to his client. Sampanas proffered excuse
of waiting for the certification before filing the petition for
adoption is disingenuous and flimsy. In his position paper, he
suggested to Nery that if the alien adopter would be married to
her close relative, the intended adoption could be possible.

Under the Domestic Adoption Act provision, which Sampana
suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt a relative within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino
spouse, and the certification of the aliens qualification to adopt
is waived.
Having no valid reason not to file the petition for
adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the
petition. He then conceded that the annulment case
overshadowed the petition for adoption. Verily, Sampana
neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. He even kept the
money given him, in violation of the Codes mandate to deliver
the clients funds upon demand. A lawyers failure to return
upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own
use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of
the public confidence in the legal profession.
2.
Yes, the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors

is well-taken, except as to the penalty.
This is not the first administrative case filed against

Sampana. In Lising v. Sampana,13 we already found Sampana
guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for his unethical and illegal act relative to his
double sale of a parcel of land. We imposed upon him the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year
and warned him that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt
with more severely.
In Rollon v. Naraval,14 we imposed upon the
respondent therein the penalty of suspension from the practice
of law for two (2) years for failing to render any legal service
after receiving the filing and partial service fee. Considering
the serious consequence of disbarment and the previous
rulings of this Court, we deem it proper to increase the penalty
3G AY 2015-2016
for Sampanas malpractice and violation of the Code of

Professional Responsibility to suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) years.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana from
the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS with a stern warning
that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more
severely. We also ORDER Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana to
RETURN to complainant Melody R. Nery the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), with 12% interest
per annum from the time of his receipt of the full amount of
money on 17 November 2008 until 30 June 2013, then 6%
interest per annum from 1 July 2013 until fully paid.
FILING OF FRIVOLOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL

COMPLAINTS BY A LAWYER
MADRID VS. DELCA
A.C. NO. 7474 SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
BERSAMIN, J.;
FACTS: On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered

his appearance in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795, entitled
"People of the Philippines v. Philip William Arsenault" then
pending in Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid
as replacement for Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion
to withdraw as counsel for the accused. Atty. Dealca moved
that the said case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC
"[c]onsidering the adverse incidents between the incumbent
Presiding Judge and the undersigned," where "he does not
appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter
does not also hear cases handled by the undersigned. Judge

Madrid denied Atty. Dealca's motion to re-raffle and
consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint in the
Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca's unethical
practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the
inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous
adverse incidents between them. The Court referred the
matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation, report and
recommendation.
IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ultimately submitted
his Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Dealca guilty of
violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility by filing frivolous administrative and criminal
complaints; and recommending that Atty. Dealca be
suspended from the practice of law for one year because his
motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was devoid of factual or legal
basis, and was grounded on purely personal whims. Judge
Madrid filed a petition, which the IBP Board of Governors
treated as a motion for reconsideration, and soon denied.
ISSUE: Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and
criminal complaints against judges and court personnel in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility?|||
HELD: YES.
Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of
initiating unfounded suits
Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and
penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP
3G AY 2015-2016
Commissioner Hababag pointed out, his bringing of charges

against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the
Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings
being adverse to his clients or his side. The Lawyer's Oath is a
source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any
violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for
disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The oath
exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit."
These are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty
under his Lawyer's Oath not to initiate groundless, false or
unlawful suits. Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to
assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. He
disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded
complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased
the workload of the Judiciary. Atty. Dealca's bringing of the
numerous administrative and criminal complaints against
judges, court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince
any good faith on his part, considering that he made
allegations against them therein that he could not substantially
prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous and unworthy of the
Court's precious time and serious consideration.
Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility pertinently state:
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect

due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist
on similar conduct by others.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
The right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a

judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested,
impartial and independent in handling the case must be
balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without
fear of repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca
to establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of
bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from
participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was
participating as a counsel.The latter's bare allegations of
Judge Madrid's partiality or hostility did not suffice,because the
presumption that Judge Madrid would undertake his noble role
to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and
without fear or favor should only be overcome by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. As such, Atty. Dealca
clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated
in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
This is not the first administrative complaint to be ever brought

against Atty. Dealca. In Montano v. Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, we reprimanded him for violating Canon 22 and
Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
3G AY 2015-2016
Responsibility, and warned him that a repetition of the same

offense would be dealt with more severely. Accordingly, based
on the penalties the Court imposed on erring lawyers found
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03, and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of
the Code, we deem appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from
the practice of law for a period one year. a|||
The Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN

S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and
Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a
STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will
be dealt with more severely.
SUI GENERIS; CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS

CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RONALDO E. RENTA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014
FACTS:
1. Mariano Cristobal engaged the services of Renta Pe &
Associates Law Office for the filing of a petition for recognition
for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell
Green before the Bureau of Immigration.
2. Respondent, Atty. Ronaldo Renta, as the managing partner

signed the Special Contract of Legal Services in behalf of
said law office. Respondent also received from complainant
the full and package price of P160,000 for the filing of the
petition for recognition.
3. No such petition, however, was filed.
4. Thus, the instant complaint was filed against Atty. Renta for
the latters failure to file the petition for recognition and return
the amount of P160,000 despite demand.
5. Atty. Renta explained that the petition for recognition was
not filed because Anneth Tan, the one supposed to file the
petition, misplaced it and did not inform him of such fact. He
also claimed that he begged complainant to forgive him and
assured him that he will return the money.
6. However, respondent failed to refund the money on time for
he was hard up in funds. Eventually, he was able to save
enough and refunded the money to complainant. Respondent
likewise begs forgiveness from the Court and promises not to
repeat his mistake.
7. In addition, respondent submitted complainants Affidavit of
Desistance. In the said affidavit, complainant said that
respondent cried for forgiveness and that he has forgiven
him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already
refunded the amount he paid.
8. Cristobal was required to file his reply to Atty. Rentas
comment. In his Reply, complainant confirmed the contents of
his affidavit of desistance, the refund made by respondent and
his act of forgiving the respondent for the latters misdeeds.
ISSUES:
A. Does the complainants execution of affidavit of
desistance have the effect of abating the instant

proceedings against respondent?
B. Did Atty. Renta violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
A. No. On complainants affidavit of desistance, we hold
that its execution cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings against respondent in view of the
public service character of the practice of law and the
nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest
concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui
generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant
as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks
of the legal profession of its undesirable members in
order to protect the public and the courts. A
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of
respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court
and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
B. Yes.
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
3G AY 2015-2016
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection

therewith shall render him liable.
Here, it is beyond doubt that respondent breached his duty to
serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him. He himself admits that the petition for
recognition was not filed, seeks forgiveness from the Court
and promises not to repeat his mistake. Complainant also
submitted official letters from the Bureau of Immigration that
indeed no such petition was filed. That Anneth Tan
supposedly lost the petition for recognition and failed to inform
respondent cannot absolve him of liability for it was his duty
not to neglect complainants case and handle it with diligence.
The Court notes, however, that while respondent failed to
refund immediately the amount paid by complainant, he
nevertheless exerted earnest efforts that he eventually was
able to fully repay complainant and begged complainants
forgiveness.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ronaldo E. Renta is LIABLE for violation
of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be
dealt with more severely.
GROSS MISCONDUCT OF A LAWYER
ROLANDO VIRAY VS ATTY. EUGENIO T. SANICAS
A.C. No. 7337, September 29,2014
Del Castillo, J.
A Lawyers Failure To Immediately Account For And Return
The Money When Due And Upon Demand Violated The Trust
3G AY 2015-2016
Reposed In Him, Demonstrated His Lack Of Integrity And

Moral Soundness, And Warrants The Imposition Of
Disciplinary Action
The Facts: Rolando (Viray) engaged the services of Atty.
Eugenio (Sanicas) in a labor case he filed against the spouses
Ester and Teodoro Lopez III, for which an award of
P189,491.00 was given to him. When the Alias Writ of
Execution was issued in the case, and when it was
implemented, he learned that Eugenio had already collected
the amount of P95,000.00, which he did from February 5, 2004
to April 30, 2004. He learned that Eugenio misrepresented to
the spouses Lopez that he is authorized to receive the
payments in behalf of Roger, when in truth he was not.
Despite demand from Roger to return the amount, Eugenio
failed thus he filed an administrative case against Eugenio for
gross misconduct.
In his Comment, Eugenio admitted receiving from the spouses
the amount of P95,000.00 but averred that he was authorized
to receive it. Their agreement was for him to receive 25% of
the award as attorneys fees; deducting P17, 226.57 (25%)
from the award, P100,000.00 will be given to Roger as the
amount he expected to receive from the case, and the balance
to be given to him as part of the professional fee and
reimbursement of his expenses in handling the case. After
receiving the P95,000.00, he gave P17,000.00 to Roger,
deducting P20,000.00 as his professional fee, and giving to
the sheriff P2,000.00, it left him with only P56,000.00 more or
less, way below his P72,000.00 agreed attorneys fees and
reimbursement. Roger was still entitled to receive more than
what he expected since there remains P93,491.00 to be

collected from spouses plus the P17,000.00 he earlier gave.
The IBP, in its a report and recommendation, recommended
that Eugenio be suspended from the practice of law for two
years, and to return all the amounts he collected.
The Issue: Is Atty. Eugenio Sanicas guilty of gross

misconduct?
The Courts ruling: YES. Sanicas is guilty of gross misconduct.
Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code imposes upon the lawyer
the duty to account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 thereof, on the
other hand, mandates that [a] lawyer shall deliver the funds x
x x of his client when due or upon demand.
In this case, respondent on nine separate occasions received
payments for attorneys fees and partial payments for
monetary awards on behalf of complainant from spouses
Lopez. But despite the number of times over close to three
months he had been receiving payment, respondent neither
informed the complainant of such fact nor rendered an
accounting thereon. It was only when an Alias Writ of
Execution was issued and being implemented when
complainant discovered that spouses Lopez had already given
respondent the total amount of P95,000.00 as partial payment
for the monetary awards granted to him by the labor tribunal.
3G AY 2015-2016
To make matters worse, respondent withheld and refused to

deliver to the complainant said amount, which he merely
received on behalf of his client, even after
demand. Complainant brought the matter before the
barangay, but respondent simply ignored the same. Such
failure and inordinate refusal on the part of the respondent to
render an accounting and return the money after demand
raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. His
unjustified withholding of the funds also warrants the
imposition of disciplinary action against him.
In sum, [r]espondents failure to immediately account for and
return the money when due and upon demand violated the
trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and
moral soundness, and warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.
Hence, respondent Atty. Eugenio T. Sanicas is of gross
misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for one
(1) year with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act or offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Territorial limitation of a notary publics jurisdiction

FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR. vs. ATTY. MARCELO B.
SUERTE-FELIPE
A.C. No. 7184
September 17, 2014
PONENTE: ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
FACTS: In a Complaint1 dated April 27, 2006, complainant
Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent, previously of the
Public Attorney's Office, for malpractice and gross negligence

in the performance of his duty as a notary public and/or
lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been
registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized
the acknowledgment of the document entitled "Extra judicial
Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De
Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999" (subject document), stating
that he is a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina." To
prove his claim, complainant attached a Certification dated
May 26, 2005 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, certifying that per
the courts record, respondent is not a commissioned notary
public for the Cityof Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date
of issuance.
In a Resolution, the Court required respondent to file his
Comment. In said pleading, respondent admitted that he
indeed notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document
but denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at
that time. To prove his defense, he attached a Certification
dated August 23, 2006 issued by the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying the fact of his
appointment as notary public for the City of Pasig and in the
Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong
for the years 1998-1999 under Appointment No. 98.
The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty
for violating the Notarial Law and the lawyers oath, reasoning
that he could not notarize the acknowledgment of the subject
3G AY 2015-2016
document in Marikina City as it was outside the territorial limits

of his jurisdiction. To this end, the Investigating Commissioner
pointed out that in the acknowledgment of the subject
document, it was categorically stated that respondent is a
notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province of Rizal,
of which he was not, hence, violating the Notarial Law.
Moreover,respondent likewise violated the lawyers oath,
specifically its mandate for lawyers, to obey the laws and do
no falsehood. It was recommended that respondent be
suspended for a period of two (2) years from the practice of
law.
The IBP Board of Governors imposed the penalty of reprimand
with warning, and disqualification from being commissioned as
a notary public for the decreased period of one (1) year.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held guilty of
malpractice as a notary public
RULING: YES. The territorial limitation of a notary publics
jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice:23 Sec. 11. Jurisdiction and Term
A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning
court is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
Respondent, who himself admitted that he was commissioned
as notary public only in the City of Pasig and the Municipalities
of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years
1998-1999, could not notarize the subject documents
acknowledgment in the City of Marikina, as said notarial act is

beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, i.e.,the
RTC of Pasig.
For misrepresenting in the said acknowledgment that he was a
notary public for and in the City of Marikina, when it is
apparent and, in fact, uncontroverted that he was not,
respondent further committed a form of falsehood which is
undoubtedly anathema to the lawyers oath. Perceptibly, said
transgression also runs afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a]
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from
it.1wphi1Notarization is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the
issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a
formality definitely more than casual.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe is
found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and violating
the lawyers oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise
DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of one (1) year and his notarial commission, if
currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
3G AY 2015-2016
Doctrine: ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION AGAINST

REPRESENTING CONFLICTING INTERESTS
Daging v. Davis
A.C. No. 9395; November 12, 2014
Del Castillo, J.
Facts: Complainant, owner and operator of Nashville Country
Music Lounge, leased from Pinlac a building space where she
operated said bar. During said lease, complainant entered into
a Retainer Agreement with respondents law firm. Because
complainant was delinquent in paying the monthly rentals,
Pinlac terminated the lease, inventoried the bars equipment
and informed the former that Balageo will take over the
operation of the bar. Complainant then filed an ejectment suit
against Pinlac and Balageo before MTCC Baguio where
respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo despite the
susbsistence of the Retainer Agreement. The complainant
then filed an administrative complaint for disbarment before
the IBP (Benguet Chapter) against respondent, Atty. Riz
Tingalon Davis. After finding respondent guilty of betrayal of
his clients trust and for misuse of information obtained from
his client to the disadvantage of the latter and to the
advantage of another person, the IBP imposed the penalty of
six months suspension from the practice of law.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: Complainants case is

actually handled only by his partner Atty. Sabling thus, he is
not privy to any transaction between the two and has no
knowledge of any information or legal matter the former
entrusted/confided to the latter. He claims that he could not
have taken advantage of an information obtained by his law

firm by virtue of the Retainer Agreement.
Issue: WoN the respondent is guilty of betrayal of his clients
trust.
Held: YES. Based on the established facts, it is indubitable
that respondent transgressed Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides that a lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
"A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his present or former client." The
prohibition against representing conflicting interests is absolute
and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in good faith
and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. This
Court emphasized that lawyers are expected not only to keep
inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
The Court also held that a lawyer who takes up the
cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged the
services of his law firm brings the law profession into public
disrepute and suspicion and undermines the integrity of
justice. Undeniably aware of the fact that complainant is a
client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately
informed both the complainant and Balageo that he, as well as
3G AY 2015-2016
the other members of his law firm, cannot represent any of

them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be
representing conflicting interests and violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have
simply advised both complainant and Balageo to instead
engage the services of another lawyer.
The penalty for representing conflicting interests may either be
reprimand or suspension from the practice of law ranging from
six months to two years.
SUSPENSION OF A LAWYER FOR VIOLATION OF BP 22

AND FAILURE TO PAY HIS DEBTS
ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES, M.D., Respondent
A.C. No. 10240
November 25, 2014
[Formerly CBD No. 11-3241]
FACTS: In her complaint, Sanchez claimed that she is a friend
and close acquaintance of Atty. Torres. That in 2007, Atty.
Torres asked Sanchez to lend him money in the amount of
Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,200,000.00),
and convinced her that he will pay the said amount within a
period of one (1) month, plus interest. To bolster Sanchez's
trust and confidence, Atty. Torres issued two (2) Allied Bank
checks amounting to P1,200,000.00 and P1,000,000.00,
respectively. However, after one (1) month,Atty. Torres failed
to pay his obligation as promised. On May 2, 2008, Sanchez
deposited the said checks to her account, but the same were
returned due to "ACCOUNT CLOSED." Despite repeated
demands for the last three (3) years, Atty. Torres had yet to
pay his obligation since then, and thus, complainant sought
legal assistance.
On November 28, 2011, the IBPCommission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) required Atty. Torres to file an answer.
Despite sufficient time for respondent Atty. Torres to file his
answer, he failed to do so. Worse, he even failed to appear in
the scheduled mandatory conference despite due notice.
Thus, in its Report and Recommendation9 dated June 15,
2012, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Torres guilty of willful
dishonesty and unethical conduct for failure to pay just debt
and for issuing checks without sufficient funds. It
recommended that Atty. Torres be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law for at least two (2) years.
ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT A LAWYER MAY BE SUSPENDED
FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED IN HIS PERSONAL
CAPACITY?
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUSPENSION OF THE ATTY
TORRES IS CORRECT?
COURTS RULING:
1. YES. Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with
suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice and
3G AY 2015-2016
vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to

maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing
so that the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully
perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts
and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in
a manner that reflect the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states: Canon 1 A lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
The Court notes Atty. Torres' conduct in the course of the
proceedings where he repeatedly asked for extensions of time
to file an answer and a motion for reconsideration, which he
failed to submit, and his failure to attend the disciplinary
hearings set by the IBP do not speak well of his standing as a
lawyer. In Ngayan v. Tugade, we ruled that "[a lawyers] failure
to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear
at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to
lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his
oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138, Rules of
Court.
2. Yes. Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with

one-year suspension from the practice of law. The
Court deem it proper to adopt the penalty of two (2)
years suspension in light of the amount involved and
the brazen disregard by Atty. Torres of the Orders of
the IBP-CBD on the filing of an answer and
appearance in the hearing. We cannot sustain,
however, the IBPs recommendation ordering
respondent to return the amount of P2,200,000.00 to
complainant. In disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the
court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member
of the Bar. Our only concern isthe determination of
respondents administrative liability. Our findings have
no material bearing on other judicial actions which the
parties may choose to file against each other.
However, we note that in CF Sharp Crew management, Inc. v.
Nicolas C. Torres, the Court had already disbarred Torres from
the practice of law for having been found guilty of violating
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
NEGLIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY

Felipe Layos v. Atty. Marlito I. Villanueva
A.C. No. 8085, December 01, 2014
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS: Felipe filed a complaint against Atty. Marlito
Villanueva, his counsel of record. His constant failure during
trial resulted in Felipes right to cross-examine a prosecution
3G AY 2015-2016
witness being waived, and was only able to move for

reconsideration after four years, which was denied. When
Marlito then filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of
Appeals, which was dismissed on the merits, the CA chastised
Marlito for his lack of candidness and fervor in championing
the cause of his client, because he never bothered to know the
outcome of the hearings where he was absent from; it took
Marlito a long time before he moved to reconsider the RTCs
order; and he never questioned the appearances of other
lawyers as lawyer for Felipe during his absences. Citing as
basis, Felipe filed this administrative case.
In his comment, Marlito denied being remiss in his duties as
counsel. During the hearing on April 4, 2002, where the case
was supposed to be settled amicably, his car broke down. He
asked his secretary to contact Felipe but the latter cannot be
reached. He never heard from Felipe for a long time and
assumed that the amicable settlement pushed through. He
came to know it was not the case when he received a notice of
hearing sometime in 2005. He went to the RTC and found out
about the June 23, 2006 Order and that other lawyers were
appearing for complainant. He relied on the word of the RTC
staff that they will provide him a copy thru mail but they did not
do so and thus, was only able to secure a copy of the order on
April 4, 2006 and move for reconsideration on April 21, 2007.
He also averred he had a hard time locating the complainant.
The IBP upon referral for investigation and report
recommended that Marlito be suspended from the practice of
law for six months for neglecting his clients case and
interests.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent should be held administratively

liable for the acts complained of.
HELD: YES. Under Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the CPR, it is the lawyers duty to serve his clients
interest with utmost zeal, candor and diligence. As such, he
must keep abreast of all the developments in his clients case
and should inform the latter of the same, as it is crucial in
maintaining the latters confidence.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform
his client of whatever important information he may have
acquired affecting his clients case. He should notify his client
of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether
to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client
informed of the developments of the case will minimize
misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the
attorney. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on
how the lawyer is defending the clients interests. In this
connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his
actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his
client. As such, the lawyer is expected to be acquainted with
the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who
deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount
of professional learning and competence but also a wholehearted fealty to the clients cause.
In the case at bar, records reveal that since missing the April
4, 2002 hearing due to car trouble, respondent no longer kept
track of complainants criminal case and merely assumed that
the same was already amicably settled and terminated.
Thereafter, when respondent discovered the RTCs issuance
of the June 26, 2003 Order which is prejudicial to
3G AY 2015-2016
complainants cause, respondent did not immediately seek any

remedy to further the interests of his client. Instead, he
passively relied on the representations of the court employees
that they would send him a copy of the aforesaid Order.
Worse, when he finally secured a copy on April 4, 2006, it still
took him over a year, or until April 21, 2007, just to move the
RTC to reconsider its June 26, 2003 Order. Naturally, the RTC
and the CA denied the motion for being filed way beyond the
reglementary period, to the detriment of complainant. Clearly,
respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as
men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in
such matters of professional employment.
It must be stressed that public interest requires that an
attorney exert his best efforts in the prosecution or defense of
a clients cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his
client, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the
bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession. Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole
system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time
when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the
legal profession, strict compliance with ones oath of office and
the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marlito I. Villanueva is found
administratively liable and was suspended for three (3)
months.
Notarization of documents while out of the country

Atty. Aurelio Angeles, jr. vs Atty. Renato Bagay
A.C. 8103, December 3, 2014
Facts: Atty. Angeles, Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan,

submitted a letter to Hon. Remigio Escalada, jr., the Executive
Judge of the RTC of Bataan, against Atty. Bagay, alleging that
the latter notarized 18 documents while outside the country,
attending a Prayer and Life Workshop in Mexico. The
documents include Deeds of Donation, Deeds of Sale, and an
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. Attached to the letter were
the affidavits of the persons who had the documents notarized.
The Executive Judge thereafter referred the matter to the
Bataan Chapter of the IBP who later on endorsed the matter to
the Commission on Bat Discipline(CBD). The CBD Director
opted to endorse the matter to the Office of Bar Confidant.
Atty. Bagay admitted that there were documents that were
notarized while he was out of the country, signed by his office
secretary who was unaware of the import of the act. In a
Resolution, the IBP Board adopted the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, holding Atty. Bagay guilty of
negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public
and thereby revoking his Notarial Commission and
disqualifying him from appointment as a notary public within
the next two years. Atty. Bagay filed a motion for
reconsideration, asking for leniency, as the act was without
wrongful intention. The motion was, however, denied.
3G AY 2015-2016
Issue: Whether or not the notarization of documents by the

secretary of the respondent while he was out of the country
constituted negligence.
Held: Yes. The notarization of documents by the office

secretary while the Notary Public is out of the country
constitutes negligence.
Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines a
notary public as, any person commissioned to perform official
acts under these Rules. Thus the secretary is not
commissioned to perform these notarial acts. The notary
public cannot claim that he did not authorized the act of the
secretary, he is bound by the acts of the secretary he
employed because he negligently left his notarial seal and
register within the reach of his secretary.
Furthermore, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly
assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The negligent acts
of the respondent allowed the unauthorized practice of law by
his secretary in signing on his behalf as a notary public.
Also, under Canon 7, every lawyer is directed to uphold at all
times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The
persons who sought to have their documents notarized found
that the same documents are without effect thereby eroding
their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Suspension ; Disbarment; Violations of the CPR; Rule on

Conflicting interests; Attorney-Client relationship; Factors
for the existence of rule on lawyer-client privilege
Jimenez vs. Francisco
744 SCRA 215 , December 10, 2014
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: This refers to the complaint received by Commission
on Bar Discipline (CBD) on September 6, 2007, filed by
Caroline Castaeda Jimenez (complainant) against Atty.
Francisco for multiple violations of the CPR. Complainant was
shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint for
estafa filed by Jimenez against her. She felt even more
betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, on
whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarions
corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her
to file a disciplinary case against Atty. Francisco for
representing conflicting interests. According to her, she usually
conferred with Atty. Francisco regarding the legal implications
of Clarions transactions. More significantly, the principal
documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarions
property were all prepared and drafted by Atty. Francisco or
the members of his law office. Atty. Francisco was the one
who actively participated in the transactions involving the sale
of the Forbes property. Without admitting the truth of the
allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its
execution clearly betrayed the trust and confidence she
reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason, complainant
prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.
The Findings of the Investigating Commissioner:
The Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Jose I. dela Rama, Jr.
(Investigating Commissioner),found Atty. Francisco guilty of
violations of the CPR and recommended that he be
3G AY 2015-2016
suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law. The
Investigating Commissioner also pointed out Atty. Franciscos
clear admission that the transfer of shares within Clarion were
"without any consideration," ran counter to the deeds of
assignment that he again admittedly executed as corporate
counsel. Worse, Atty. Francisco admitted to have simulated
the loan and undervalued the consideration of the effected
sale of the Forbes property, which displayed his unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in violation of Canon
1 of the CPR. Further, when he executed the affidavit
containing allegations against the interest of Clarion and
complainant, the Investigating Commissioner held that Atty.
Francisco violated the rule on privileged communication and
engaged in an act that constituted representation of conflicting
interests in violation of Canons 15 and 21 of the CPR.
In its January 3, 2013 Resolution, the IBP-BOG adopted and
approved, in toto, the findings and recommendation of the
CBD against Atty. Francisco. Atty. Francisco appealed to the
compassion of the IBP-BOG, reasoning out that the penalty of
suspension of one (1) year is too severe considering that in his
more than three decades of practice, he had never been
involved in any act that would warrant the imposition of
disciplinary action upon him. In its March 22, 2014 Resolution,
the IBP-BOG denied the respondents motion for
reconsideration. No petition for review was filed with the Court.
The Estafa case aforementioned: (Mark Jimenez vs Caroline
Jimenez, et. al.)
The Antecedents Mario Crespo, otherwise known as Mark
Jimenez (Jimenez), filed a complaint for estafa against
complainant, her sister Rosemarie Flaminiano, Marcel Crespo,
Geraldine Antonio, Brenda Heffron, Magdalena Cunanan, and
Isabel Gonzalez. Jimenez alleged that he was the true and
beneficial owner of the shares of stock in Clarion Realty and
Development Corporation (Clarion), which was incorporated

specifically for the purpose of purchasing a residential house
located in Forbes Park, Makati City (Forbes property).
Jimenezs complaint for estafa was based on complainants
alleged participation in the fraudulent means in selling the
Forbes property which was acquired by Clarion with Jimenezs
money. Complainant was duty bound to remit all the proceeds
of the sale to Jimenez as the true and beneficial owner.
Complainant and her co-respondents, however,
misappropriated and converted the funds for their personal
use and benefit.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Atty. Edgar Francisco should be suspended or
disbarred in view of the allegations against him.
2. WON there exist attorney-client relationship.
3. WON whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the rule on
conflict of interests.
HELD:
1. Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct;
(4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation
of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as an attorney
for a party without authority. A lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy
to continue as an officer of the court.
In the instant case, he violated Violations of Canons 1 and 10
of the CPR and the Lawyers Oath.
3G AY 2015-2016
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.0 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
In the facts obtaining in this case, Atty. Francisco clearly
violated the canons and his sworn duty. He is guilty of
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted
to having allowed his corporate client, Clarion, to actively
misrepresent to the SEC, the significant matters regarding its
corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate
shareholdings. In the documents submitted to the SEC, such
as the deeds of assignment and the GIS, Atty. Francisco, in
his professional capacity, feigned the validity of these transfers
of shares, making it appear that these were done for
consideration when, in fact, the said transactions were
fictitious, albeit upon the alleged orders of Jimenez. As
corporate secretary of Clarion, it was his duty and obligation to
register valid transfers of stocks. Nonetheless, he chose to
advance the interests of his clientele with patent disregard of
his duties as a lawyer. Worse, Atty. Francisco admitted to
have simulated the loan entered into by Clarion and to have
undervalued the consideration of the effected sale of the
Forbes property. He permitted this fraudulent ruse to cheat the
government of taxes. Unquestionably, therefore, Atty.
Francisco participated in a series of grave legal infractions and
was content to have granted the requests of the persons
involved.
Canon 10 of the CPR provides that, [a] lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court. Corollary thereto, Rule
10.0 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead
or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice. Lawyers are

officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration
of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system,
protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are
expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially
with the court. From the foregoing, Atty. Francisco clearly
violated his duties as a lawyer embodied in the CPR, namely,
to avoid dishonest and deceitful conduct, (Rule 1.01, Canon 1)
and to act with candor, fairness and good faith (Rule 10.01,
Canon 10). Also, Atty. Franciso desecrated his solemn oath
not to do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of the same.
2. None. The claim of being Atty. Franciscos client remains
unsubstantiated. There was no detailed explanation as to how
she supposedly engaged the services of Atty. Francisco as her
personal counsel and as to what and how she communicated
with the latter anent the dealings she had entered into.
Moreover, the complainant failed to attend hearings at the IBP.
3. No. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, "[a]
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts."
TESTS that may be used to show conflicting interests:
1st: Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or
claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose
that claim for the other client.
2nd: Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent
the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
3rd: Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.
3G AY 2015-2016
From the foregoing, the rule on conflict of interests

presupposes a lawyer-client relationship. The purpose of the
rule is precisely to protect the fiduciary nature of the ties
between an attorney and his client.
The factors to establish existence of the rule on lawyer-client
privilege:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a
prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of
this relationship that the client made the communication.
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
The Court holds that the evidence on record fails to
demonstrate the claims of complainant. As discussed, the
complainant failed to establish the professional relationship
between her and Atty. Francisco. The records are further
bereft of any indication that the "advice" regarding the sale of
the Forbes property was given to Atty. Francisco in
confidence. Neither was there a demonstration of what she
had communicated to Atty. Francisco nor a recital of
circumstances under which the confidential communication
was relayed. All that complaint alleged in her complainant was
that "she sought legal advice from respondent in various
occasions."
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Edgar B. Francisco

GUILTY of violation of Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for which he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
Duty to account for all funds and property collected or

received for or from the client.
SPOUSES NICASIO DONELITA SAN
PEDRO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ISAGANI A.
MENDOZA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5440
December 10, 2014

LEONEN, J.:
Internal Revenue. Further, respondent alleged that the

retention of the money is justified owing to his receivables from
complainants for the services he rendered in various cases in
which the complaints were involved.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to hold in
trust the money of his clients?
HELD: YES. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states:
FACTS: On November 21, 1996, complainants engaged the

services of respondent to facilitate the transfer of title to
property, in the name of Isabel Azcarraga Marcaida, to
complainants. Complainants then gave respondent a check
for P68,250.00 for the payment of transfer taxes. They also
gave respondent a check for P13,800.00 for respondents
professional fee. Respondent failed to produce the title despite
complainants repeated follow-ups. Consequently,
complainants demanded the refund of the amount intended for
the payment of transfer taxes. Due to respondents failure to
return the same, complainants instituted this complaint for
disbarment against the former.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL

MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
In his answer, respondent claimed that complainants were the

ones who caused the three-year delay in the transfer of title to
complainants names. Complainants were not able to furnish
respondent several important documents: (a) original copy of
the deed of extrajudicial petition; (b) affidavit of publication with
the clippings of the published item in a newspaper of general
circulation; and (c) a barangay certificate from the barangay
where the property is located as required by the Bureau of
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and

client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account for the money
or property collected or received for or from the client[,] [thus] .
. . [w]hen a lawyer collects or receives money from his client
for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration
fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly
account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not
use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately
3G AY 2015-2016
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property

collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
A lawyers duty under Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is clear:
return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting

or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money
does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
[The lawyers] failure to return the clients money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has
misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.
Respondent admitted that there were delays in the transfer of
title of property to complainants name.1wphi1 He
continuously assured complainants that he would still fulfill his
duty. However, after three (3) years and several demands
from complainants, respondent failed to accomplish the task
given to him and even refused to return the money.
Complainants alleged failure to provide the necessary
documents to effect the transfer does not justify his violation of
his duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, respondent is guilty for violation of Canon 16 and was
consequently suspended in the practice of law for a period of
three months.
Negligence and incompetence by a counsel in dealing

with a client and undermining the legal processes, which
she swore to uphold and defend.
MARILEN G. SOLIMAN VS. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY
EN BANC, A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 102753], January 13, 2015
J. Reyes
FACTS: Marilen (Soliman) engaged the services of Atty. Ditas
(Lerios-Amboy) in connection with a partition case. They both
agreed that Ditas retainer fee will be P50,000.00, one half of
which was paid to Ditas upon engagement. Later, Ditas told
her not to proceed anymore with the partition since the other
co-owners were amenable to a partition, hence Ditas
facilitated the issuance of the titles to the co-owners.
On November, 2008, Marilen gave Ditas P16,700.00 as
payment for the transfer tax of the property. Ditas later told her
that there were some delays in the issuance of the titles and
she knows someone from the Registry of Deeds who can
facilitate the issuance of the titles, in return for a payment of
P80,000.00. After some haggling, Ditas told Marilen that
contact at the RD agreed to accept P50,000.00, which Marilen
deposited in Ditas account. She also deposited P8,900.00 as
payment for the 2009 realty tax. Ditas informed her that the
certificates of title were just awaiting signatures of the
authorised officer.
After some delay, Ditas secretary again asked for P10,000.00,
allegedly demanded by her contact at the RD. Marilen refused.
Marilen kept asking about the updates to the titling, but Ditas
did not respond to her queries. She then went to the office of
3G AY 2015-2016
Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, to ask him if he

received the P50,000.00, but the latter denied receiving any
money from Ditas, and told her the reason the issuance of the
certificates of title were delayed was the failure of Ditas to
submit certain documents. Marilen thus demanded the return
of the documents she entrusted to Ditas, as well as the
P50,000.00 but the latter refused. In her defense, Ditas
admitted the existence of the retainer agreement, but denied
receiving any amount from the agreement, as the partition
never materialized. She denied failing to submit certain
documents to the RD causing the delay in the issuance of the
titles; as well as denied receipt of the P50,000.00.The
Investigating Commissioner recommended that Ditas be
suspended from the practice of law for six months, for failing to
observe due diligence in her dealings with Marilen and failing
to update her on the status of the titling. The IBP Board
modified the penalty recommended to two years suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Amboy was negligient to her

client and had violated the legal processes.
HELD: Yes. The circumstances of this case clearly show that

Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her
professional services, failed to submit material documents
relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the
individual owners of the property. It was her negligence which
caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title.
3G AY 2015-2016
To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission

of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount of
P50,000.00 to be paid to her contact inside the office of the
RD in order to facilitate the release of the said certificates of
title. Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00,
Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said
certificates of title. Instead of procuring the release of the
certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked for an
additional P10,000.00 from Soliman.
Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and
incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client. Atty.
Amboys acts undermined the legal processes, which she
swore to uphold and defend. In swearing to the oath, Atty.
Amboy bound herself to respect the law and legal processes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he
should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and
diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and
to keep his client informed of the status of his case and
respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for
information.
The Court further finds improper the refusal of Atty. Amboy to
return the amount of P50,000.00 which she paid in order to
facilitate the release of the certificates of title. To reiterate,
upon inquiry, Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila,
denied having received any amount from Atty. Amboy. In not
returning the money to Soliman after a demand therefor was
made following her failure to procure the issuance of the
certificates of title, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof,

which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client upon demand. It is settled that the
unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants
the imposition of disciplinary action
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions,
Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy is found GUILTY of violating Rule
16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years.
GROSS MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL

Fernando W. Chu, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose C. Guico,
Jr., Respondent
A.C. NO. 10573, January 13, 2015
Per Curiam
FACTS: Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the

labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz
Corporation (CVC). Atty, Guicos legal services included
handling a complaint for illegal dismal brought against CVC. In
the Labor Arbiter level, CVC lost the labor dispute. Atty. Guico
seasonably filed an appeal to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). Meanwhile, during a Christmas Party in
Atty. Guicos residence, Chu was asked by the former to
prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the
NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure them a
3G AY 2015-2016
favorable decision. Chu accordingly complied by furnishing

Atty. Guico the amount of P300,000 pesos, said amount was
given through the latters assistant Reynaldo (Nardo)
Manahan. Subsequently, in a meeting with Atty. Guico, Chu
was handed a copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in
favor of CVC. The draft decision was printed on the dorsal
portion of used paper apparently emanating from the office of
Atty. Guico. On that occasion, the latter told Chu to raise
another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner
to issue the decision. But Chu could only produce
P280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guicos office.
However, it was Nardo who received the amount without
issuing any receipt. Chu followed up on the status of the CVC
case with Atty. Guico. However, Atty. Guico referred him to
Nardo and after a series of inquiries as to whether the NLRC
Commisioner had already received the money, Nardo
ultimately replied in the negative and simply told Chu to wait.
Nardo assured that the money was still with Atty. Guico who
would return it should the NLRC Commissioner not accept it.
Afterward, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC.
Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who in turn referred Chu to Nardo
for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of
the motion for reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the
preparation and filing of an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Finally, Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel.
Atty. Guicos answer and contention: The administrative
complaint filed against him is replete with lies and
inconsistencies, and insisted that the charge was only meant
for harassment. He denied demanding and receiving money
from Chu, a denial that Nardo corroborated with his own
affidavit. He further denied handing to Chu a draft decision

printed on used paper emanating from his office, surmising
that the used paper must have been among those freely lying
around in his office that had been pilfered by Chus witnesses
in the criminal complaint he had handled for Chu.
ISSUE: Did Atty. Guico violate the Lawyers Oath and Rules
1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) for demanding and receiving
P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from
the NLRC?
HELD: YES. ATTY. GUICO VIOLATED THE LAWYERS
OATH AND CANON 1, RULES 1.01 AND 1.02 OF THE CPR.
ACCORDINGLY, HE IS GUILTY OF GROSS
MISCOUNDUCT.
The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal
processes under the Lawyers Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility is a continuing condition for every
lawyer to retain membership in the Legal Profession. To
discharge the obligation, every lawyer should not render any
service or give advice to any client that would involve defiance
of the very laws that he was bound to uphold and obey, for he
or she was always bound as an attorney to be law abiding,
and thus to uphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal
Profession.Verily, he or she must act and comport himself or
herself in such a manner that would promote public confidence
in the integrity of the Legal Profession. Any lawyer found to
violate this obligation forfeits his or her privilege to continue
such membership in the legal profession.
3G AY 2015-2016
Guicos attempt to downplay the sourcing of used paper from

his office was futile because he did not expressly belie the
forthright statement of Chu. All that Atty. Guico stated by way
of deflecting the imputation was that the used paper containing
the draft decision could have been easily taken from his office
by Chus witnesses in a criminal case that he had handled for
Chu, pointing out that everything in his office, except the filing
cabinets and his desk, was open to the public xxx and just
anybody has access to everything found therein. In our view,
therefore, Atty. Guico made the implied admission because he
was fully aware that the used paper had unquestionably come
from his office. Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the
law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of
money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor
case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption.
He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as
his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that he
soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts
constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant
breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyers Oath
not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade
him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in
him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession
as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Deceit, Gross Misconduct and Violation of Oath under

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. v. ATTY. ISIDRO
L. CARACOL
A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
FACTS: OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to

Micael Babela who had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When
the agrarian reform law was enacted, emancipation patents
and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot,
beneficiaries of the program, who in turn sold the parcels of
land to complainants spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. The
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the
emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433
stating that it was not covered by the agrarian reform law.
This decision was appealed to and affirmed by the DARAB
Central Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol, as
Additionall Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant, filed a motion
for execution with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying
for the full implementation of the decision. Atty. Caracol filed a
Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and
Demolition which he signed as Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren
Babela.
Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol
had no authority to file the motions since he obtained no
authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record.
Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized
3G AY 2015-2016
Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had

already been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty.
Caracols real client was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had
allegedly bought the same parcel of land. Atty. Caracol insists
that Efren and Ernesto authorized him to appear as additional
counsel. He said that he had consulted Atty. Aquino who
advised him to go ahead with the filing. Moreover, he stated
that he was not aware that there was a waiver of rights
executed in Ernesto Aguirres favor. In its Report and
Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty.
Caracol committed deceitful acts and misconduct.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and

violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court?
RULING: YES. The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21

provides for a presumption of a lawyers appearance on behalf
of his client, hence:
SEC. 21. Authority of attorney to appear. An attorney
is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause
in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is
required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but
the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on
reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any
attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce
or prove the authority under which he appears, and to

disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the
person who employed him, and may thereupon make such
order as justice requires. An attorney willfully appearing in
court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of
the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the
court who has misbehaved in his official transactions.
(Emphases supplied)
Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act
as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he
appear in court without being employed unless by leave of
court. If an attorney appears on a clients behalf without a
retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he
purports to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or
affected by his appearance unless the purported client ratifies
or is estopped to deny his assumed authority. If a lawyer
corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his
official transaction.
Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had already passed away at the
time he filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of
Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and
conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his
clients passing and presented authority that he was retained
by the clients successors-in-interest and thus the parties may
have been substituted.
Atty. Caracol was found guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
3G AY 2015-2016
Court. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of

law for one year.
JUDGE AND LAWYER COLLUDED IN ACQUIRING

COMPLAINANTS PROPERTY
Tejano vs. Baterina
AC 8235, January 27, 2015
Carpio, J.
FACTS: Joselito Tejano charged Judge Dominador Arguelada

and his lawyer, Benjamin Baterina for allegedly acting in
conspiracy with one another to take possession of his familys
property. According to him, he filed a case for recovery of
possession and damages in Civil Case No. 4046-V against the
Province of Ilocos Sur when the latter built an access road
traversing their property without instituting an expropriation
proceeding. The case was raffled to Branch 21 of the Vigan
City RTC in October 1988. Prior to his appointment to the
court, Judge Arguelada was the prosecutor in Branch 21 and
represented the province of Ilocos Sur. In his affidavit, Tejano
alleged that the judge and Atty. Baterina colluded with each
other in the formers bid to take over his familys property, as
shown by the fact that the judge was collecting rentals from
the squatters in the property.
With respect to Atty. Baterina, Tejano alleged that the latter
miserably failed advance his cause. Specifically, Tejano
alleged that Atty. Baterina 1) failed to object when the judge
waived their right to present evidence after several
postponements of the hearing, despite the fact that his mother

was ill at the hospital; 2) manifested in open court that he
would file a motion for reconsideration of the order, but did not
file the same; 3) manifested in open court that he would not be
presenting any more witnesses without consulting them; and
4) failed to file his formal offer of exhibits despite order from
the court.
Since the OCA had no jurisdiction to hear the case against
Baterina, the latter referred the case to the Court, which
required Baterina to file his Comment. In his Compliance after
the court required him to show cause why he should not be
held liable for failing to file his comment, Baterina explained
that he is recuperating from a kidney ailment; he explained
that the reason he could not attend the case was that in 2002,
he was suspended from the practice of law for two years,
which fact he made known to Tejano mother and sister. Even
so, the trial court did not appoint a lawyer for the plaintiff, and
proceeded to hear the case without plaintiffs lawyer. The
culprit in Tejano predicament was the displayed bias and
undue conflict of interest of Judge Arguelada.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Baterina is guilty of gross

negligence
Held: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility governing
the conduct of lawyers, states:
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
3G AY 2015-2016
RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the clients request for information.
Lawyers have a fourfold duty to society, the legal profession,
the courts and their clients, and must act in accordance with
the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he makes a
commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latters
rights. Once a lawyers services are engaged, he is duty
bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his
clients cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to
such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him. A lawyers acceptance to take
up a case impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes final and
executory.
Atty. Baterinas duty to his clients did not automatically cease
with his suspension. At the very least, such suspension gave
him a concomitant responsibility to inform his clients that he
would be unable to attend to their case and advise them to
retain another counsel.
A lawyer even one suspended from practicing the profession
owes it to his client to not sit idly by and leave the rights of
his client in a state of uncertainty. The client should never

be left groping in the dark and instead must be adequately
and fully informed about the developments in his case.
Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when he allowed
the proceedings to run its course without any effort to
safeguard his clients welfare in the meantime. His failure to
file the required pleadings on his clients behalf constitutes
gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and renders him subject to disciplinary
action. The penalties for a lawyers failure to file the required
brief or pleading range from warning, reprimand, fine,
suspension, or in grave cases, disbarment
not a mere request but an order which should be complied

with promptly and completely.
ABUSE OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

Sps. Henry A. Concepcion and Blesilda S. Concepcion v.
Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa
A.C. No. 10681, February 03, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Further, Atty. Baterinas reckless disregard for orders and

directives of the courts is unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
His conduct has shown that he has little respect for rules, court
processes, and even for the Courts disciplinary authority. Not
only did he fail to follow the trial courts orders in his clients
case, he even disregarded court orders in his own disciplinary
proceedings.
Facts: Respondent was tasked with handling complainants

various cases and legal matters, which included the opening of
a pawnshop business. The said business failed to materialize,
and respondent, knowing that complainants had unused
money from their failed business venture, decided to borrow
from them the amount of P2,500,000.00. Complainants
agreed and lent Dela Rosa the money, thru three (3) EastWest
Bank checks issued in Dela Rosas name in three aggregate
amounts of: P750,000,00; P850,000.00; and 900,000.00
Considering Atty. Baterinas medical condition at that time, a

simple explanation to the Court would have sufficed. Instead,
however, he simply let the orders go unheeded, neglecting his
duty to the Court.
After receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper

containing photocopies of the checks and an
acknowledgement of his receipt thereof, and he personally
encashed the same.
Lawyers, as this Court has previously emphasized, are

particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes
and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court
directives being themselves officers of the court. As such,
Atty. Baterina should know that a resolution of this Court is
On the day of payment, despite repeated demands respondent

failed to pay, and only made repeated promises to pay. Later
on, complainants, with their new counsel, sent another
demand letter to respondent for payment to which the latter
denied having any debt and alleged that it was one Jean
Charles Nault (Nault), one of his other clients, who was the
3G AY 2015-2016
real debtor, and that he was only tasked with collecting the
debt for complainants.
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and

properties of his clients that may come into his possession.
After failing to reach a settlement, complainants then brought

the case to the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter charging
respondent with violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of
the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has
to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.
In his Comment, respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00

from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor. In
their letter-reply, complainants maintained that they extended
the loan to respondent alone, as evidenced by the checks
issued in the latters name. They categorically denied knowing
Nault and pointed out that it defies common sense for them to
extend an unsecured loan in the amount of P2,500,000.00 to a
person they do not even know.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Jose I. de La Rama, Jr.
(Investigating Commissioner), issued his Report concluding
that respondents actions degraded the integrity of the legal
profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and
16 of the CPR. Respondents failure to appear during the
mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the
IBP-CBD.
Issue: The central issue in this case is whether or not
respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
the CPR.
Ruling: Yes. Atty. Dela Rosa is liable for violating the CPR.
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is
prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the
clients interests are fully protected:
3G AY 2015-2016
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship

between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this
trust and confidence is prone to abuse. The rule against
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to
prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over
his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged
by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to
renege on his obligation.
The court cited the case of Frias v. Lozadas, wherein they held
that: A lawyers act of asking a client for a loan, as what
respondent did, is very unethical. It comes within those acts
considered as abuse of clients confidence.
As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money from
complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the
lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected.
Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent,
complainants relied solely on the formers word that he will
return the money plus interest within five (5) days. However,
respondent abused the same and reneged on his obligation,
giving his previous clients the runaround up to this day.
Accordingly, there is no quibble that respondent violated Rule

16.04 of the CPR.
In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated
Canon 7 of the CPR which reads:
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by
blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the
trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so
doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. Thus, he should be equally held administratively
liable on this score.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is found
guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) years effective upon finality of this Decision
Lost appeal due to negligence of lawyer

Ramirez vs Magallo
A.C.10537 ; FEBRUARY 3, 2015
PONENTE: Leonen, J.;
3G AY 2015-2016
FACTS: Reynaldo Ramirez filed a complaint before

Commision on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines alleging that he engaged Atty. Margallos services
as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title. According
to Ramirez he was contacted by Atty. Margallo as per referral
of a friend of Ramirezs sister to offer his legal services on the
condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the
controversy instead of attorneys fees and P1000 per court
appearance.
The RTC then rendered its decision and a timely appeal was
perfected. The Court of Appeals then directed Ramirez to file
his Appelants Brief. On several occasions, Ramirez followed
up on the status of the brief, but he was told that there was still
no word from the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal had been
denied due to Ramirezs failure to establish his filiation with his
alleged father and that they could no longer appeal since the
decision had been promulgated and the reglementary period
for filing an Appeal had already lapsed. Ramirez went to the
Court of Appeals and discovered that the Appellants Brief was
filed late with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies for
filing beyond the reglementary period.
The Board of Governors found that respondent Atty. Margallo
had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, the
Board of Governors recommended that Atty. Margallo be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
By way of defense, Atty. Margallo argued that she had
agreed to take on the case for free, save for travel expense of
P1,000.00 per hearing and candidly informed Ramirez and his
mother that they only had a 50% chance of winning the case.
Atty. Margallo asserted that she would not have taken on the
Appeal except that the mother of Ramirez had begged her to
do so. She claimed that when she instructed Ramirez to see
her for document signing, he ignored her. When he finally
showed up, he merely told her that he had been busy. Her
failure to immediately inform Ramirez of the unfavorable
Decision of the CA was due to losing her clients number
because her 8-year-old daughter played with her phone and
accidentally erased all her contacts.
to be reminded by either the client or the court. The

expectation to maintain a high degree of legal proficiency and
attention remains the same whether the represented party is a
high-paying client or an indigent litigant.
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility clearly
provide:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence
in
connection there with shall render him liable.
RULING:
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client

informed of the status of his case and shall
respond
within a reasonable time to clients
request for information.
Yes, respondent was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal

counsel to Ramirez. The relationship between a lawyer and a
client is imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Lawyers
are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and
competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They
commit not only to review cases or give legal advice, but also
to represent their clients to the best of their ability without need
The lack of communication and coordination between

respondent Atty. Margallo and her cost complainant Ramirez
his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His
legal cause was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on
the merits of his case, but because a person privileged to act
as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite
diligence. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to
ISSUE: Whether the neglince of the counsel warrants his 2

year suspension from practice of law.
3G AY 2015-2016
communicate with her client. She failed to exhaust all

possible means to protect complainant Ramirezs interest,
which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of
the legal profession.
Between the lawyer and the client, it is the lawyer that has the
better knowledge of facts, events, and remedies. While it is
true that the client chooses which lawyer to engage, he or she
usually does so on the basis of reputation. It is only upon
actual engagement that the client discovers the level of
diligence, competence, and accountability of the counsel that
he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the
discovery comes too late. Between the lawyer and the client,
therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear the full costs of
indifference or negligence.
GROSS MISCONDUCT IN HANDLING AN ELECTION

PROTEST CASE
Sps. Willie and Amelia Umaguing vs. Atty. Wallen De Vera
A.C. No. 10451, February 04, 2015
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS: MarieCris Umaguing, daughter of Sps. Umaguing, ran

for the position of SK Chairman in the SK elections for the year
2007 but lost to her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one vote.
Because of this, complainants lodged an election protest and
enlisted the services of respondent Atty. De Vera. On
November 7, 2007, complainants were asked by Atty. De Vera
to pay his acceptance fee of P30, 000.00, plus various
miscellaneous expenses which also amounted to P30, 000.00.
3G AY 2015-2016
According to the complainants, Atty. De Vera had more than

enough time to prepare and file the case but the former moved
at a glacial pace and only took action when the November 8,
2008 deadline was looming. Atty. De Vera then rushed the
preparation of the necessary documents and attachments for
the election protest. The MeTC found that the attached
affidavits of the material witnesses were falsified and pointed
out that while Atty. De Vera filed a pleading to rectify this error,
it was a flimsy excuse since he has ample amount of time to
file the case and submit the attachments without irregularities.
On December 12, 2007, for lack of trust and confidence in the
integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, as well as his
breach of fiduciary relations, the complainants asked the
former to withdraw as their counsel and to reimburse them the
P60, 000.00 in excessive fees he collected from them,
considering that he only appeared twice for the case. In view
of the foregoing, complainants sought Atty. De Veras
disbarment. In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. De Vera vehemently
denied all the accusations lodged against him by
complainants. He averred that the merely prepared the
essential documents for election protest based on the
statements of his clients.
In a Report and Recommendation dated December 5, 2009,
the IBP Commissioner found the administrative action to be
impressed with merit, and thus recommended that Atty. De
Vera be suspended from the practice of law for two months.
Subsequently, the Board of Governors of the IBP resolved to
adopt the findings of the IBP Commissioner, but on
reconsideration, the same Board reduced the period of
suspension from two months to one month.
professional duty requires him to represent his client with zeal

and within the bounds of the law. Likewise, he is prohibited
from handling any legal matter without adequate preparation
or allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.
ISSUE: Is Atty. De Vera administratively liable?
RULING: YES, Atty. De Vera is guilty of violating the Lawyers

Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by submitting a falsified document before a
court.
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client and
with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued
with integrity, and trustworthy. The Lawyers Oath enjoins
every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to
refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from
consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity to the courts, as well as to his clients. Every
lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and
maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of
emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence,
therefore, that the core value of honesty, integrity, and
trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
In the instant case, it is highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to
have remained in the dark about the authenticity of the
documents he himself submitted to the court when his
3G AY 2015-2016
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to

ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in
this country should remain faithful to the Lawyers Oath. Only
thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to remain as
members of the Law Profession. Any resort to falsehood or
deception, including adopting artifices to cover up ones
misdeeds against clients and the rest of the trusting public,
evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to
practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member
of the Law Profession. It deserves the guilty lawyer stern
disciplinary sanctions.
Hence, Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyers
Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is accordingly suspended for six months
from the practice of law.
Refusal to comply with the Courts directives

Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon vs Atty. Arturo B.
Cefra
A.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015
Leonen, J.:
Facts: Jimmy and Juanita Anudon filed a complaint against

Atty. Arturo B. Cefra for notarizing a falsified a Deed of Sale.
The two complainants alleged that they did not sign the Deed
of Absolute Sale, and they did not do so before Atty. Cefra.
The NBI certified that the signatures appearing the notarized
document is indeed forged contrary to Atty. Cefras
acknowledgement over the document. The complainants also
stated that it was physically impossible for their brothers,
Johnny and Alfonso, and sister, Benita, to have signed the
Deed of Sale because the former was in the US, and the latter
was in Cavite when the document was allegedly signed.
the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the
document are the same parties who executed it. This cannot
be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the
notary public acknowledging the document. Atty. Cefra claims
that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is
true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review
the document given for notarization. Parans representatives,
who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the
document, brought the Deed of Absolute Sale to Atty.
Cefra. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not
just relied on the representations of the vendee.
In his defense, Atty. Cefra stated that Jimmy and Juanita were
aware of the sale of the land. He narrated that on July 10,
1998, Juanita and Jimmys wife Helen went to his residence to
consult him on how they could sell the land to Paran. Atty.
Cefra claimed that he assisted in the preparation of the
documents for the sale, including the Deed of Sale. The Deed
of Sale was brought by the relatives of the vendee, Paran to
the residence of the complainant to have the document
signed, which was signed by Johnnys son, Leojan. Atty. Cefra
admitted knowing that Loejan was the one who affixed the
signatures of Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita with the full
knowledge and permission of the three. According to Atty.
Cefra, he notarized the questioned document in good faith,
trusting the words and pronouncements of Leojan; with the
only purpose of helping them out legally and financially.
Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. This canon requires a lawyer to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. He contumaciously
delayed compliance with this courts order to file a
Comment. As early as September 19, 2001, this court already
required Atty. Cefra to comment on the Complaint lodged
against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until the
National Bureau of Investigation arrested him. Atty. Cefra only
filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than seven
years after this courts order. Atty. Cefras actions show utter
disrespect for legal processes.
Hence, Atty. Cefra is guilty of notarizing the Deed of Absolute
Sale in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply
with an order from this Court.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and
the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the
document
Held: Yes. Notarization is the act that ensures the public that
the provisions in the document express the true agreement
between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial
practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents. It is
3G AY 2015-2016
LAWYER ENJOYS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS
Michael Ruby vs Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot
A.C. No. 10558, February 23, 2015
REYES, J.:
Facts: Complainant and his mother engaged the services of

herein respondents in connection with a case for cancellation
and nullification of deeds of donation. As per the retainer
agreement, the acceptance fee was P100,000: 70% to be paid
upon signing and the balance, after the hearing on the
issuance of a TRO. Also, the parties agreed on a P4,000
appearance fee for every hearing.
Complainant gave respondent Atty. Espejo P50,000 which will
serve as filing fee. However, the actual filing fee paid for was
only P7,561. She failed to account for the excess amount
despite several demand letters therefor.
Thereafter, Atty Espejo allegedly asked that Atty Bayot be paid
the acceptance fee balance, notwithstanding that the hearing
for the issuance of the TRO has not yet taken place because
the latter was in dire need of money. Complainant acceded but
only to the payment of P8,000 and contended that the amount
was not yet due. Also, Atty. Espejo asked for another P50,000
(which was later bargained to P20,000) as representation fee
alleging that she needs to file a separate petition for the
issuance of a TRO.
later, when he visited the RTC. He was not notified of such

fact by respondents.
On the date of the hearing of the motion to serve summons by
publication, Atty. Bayot failed to appear in court even though
complainant had duly paid his appearance fee for the said
hearing. Instead, he just met the complainants at the lobby of
the Quezon City Hall of Justice, telling them that he already
talked to the clerk of court who assured him that the court
would grant their motion.10
The complainant alleged, that the respondents failed to update
him as to the status of his complaint, and claimed that Atty.
Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel. On the
other hand, Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone
who was the counsel of the complainant and that he was
merely a collaborating counsel. His assistance was merely
sought and that it was Atty. Espejo who signed and filed the
complaint in the RTC. He further pointed out that he had no
part in the retainer agreement and denied having any
knowledge as to the payments made to Atty. Espejo. He
admitted that he was the one who drafted the motion to serve
summons through publication, but pointed out that it was Atty.
Espejo who signed and filed it in the RTC. He also admitted
that he was the one who was supposed to attend the hearing
of the said motion, but claimed that he was only requested to
do so by Atty. Espejo since the latter had another commitment.
As to the appearance fee he received for the hearing, he
denied having requested for such but the complainant
allegedly insisted to pay.
Meanwhile, the RTC denied the prayer for the issuance of the
TRO, which the complainant learned of more than a week
3G AY 2015-2016
On the other hand, Atty. Espejo, in her Answer,19 denied

asking for P50,000.00 from the complainant as filing fees. She
insisted that it was the complainant who voluntarily gave her
the money to cover the filing fees. She further alleged that she
was not able to account for the excess amount because her
files were destroyed when her office was flooded due to a
typhoon. She also denied having asked another P50,000.00
from the complainant as "representation fee," asserting that
the said amount was for the payment of the injunction bond
once the prayer for the issuance of a TRO is issued.
*Atty. Espejo passed away while the case was pending with
the IBP Board of Governors
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Bayot was complainants counsel.
2. Whether or not Atty Bayot violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD:
1. YES. The Court modified the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of
Governors.
It is undisputed that Atty. Espejo was the counsel of record in
the case that was filed in the RTC. Equally undisputed is the
fact that it was only Atty. Espejo who signed the retainer
agreement. However, the evidence on record, including Atty.
3G AY 2015-2016
Bayots admissions, points to the conclusion that a lawyerclient relationship existed between him and the complainant.
Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint and the
motion to serve summons which were filed in the RTC. He
likewise appeared as counsel in court, and advised the
complainants of the status of their case. More importantly,
Atty. Bayot admitted that he received P8,000.00, which is part
of the acceptance fee indicated in the retainer agreement.
The foregoing circumstances clearly established that a lawyerclient relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the
complainant. "Documentary formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that
the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and
received in any matter pertinent to his profession."28 Further,
acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient relationship.29 Accordingly, as regards the case before
the RTC, the complainant had two counsels Atty. Espejo and
Atty. Bayot..
2. NO. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of the

complainant and is obliged to keep the latter informed
of the status of his case. He must exercise due
diligence in protecting his clients rights. He is likewise
bound to hold in trust, and to duly account for the
money of his client that may come to his possession.
Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has
misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on
him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him
constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and

betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
Nevertheless, the administrative liability of a lawyer for any
infractions of his duties attaches only to such circumstances,
which he is personally accountable for. It would be plainly
unjust if a lawyer would be held accountable for acts, which he
did not commit. Atty. Bayot may not be held liable for Atty.
Espejos failure to account for the money she received from
complainants.
On the other hand, Atty. Bayot is legally entitled to
the P8,000.00 he received from the complainant on as his
share in the acceptance fee and to the payment of his
appearance fees, only on the days when there is a scheduled
hearing and he duly appeared for such.
considering that, at that time, the case before the RTC was still
in the early stages; the pre-trial and trial have not even started
yet. That they lost their bid for the issuance of a TRO is not
tantamount to neglect on the part of Atty. Bayot.
However, Atty. Bayot is not entirely without fault. He undertook
to the duties of a counsel without formally entering his
appearance as counsel of record. He was able to obtain
remuneration for his legal services sans any direct
responsibility as to the progress of the case. He is reminded to
be more circumspect in his dealings with clients.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is hereby
ADMONISHED to exercise more prudence and judiciousness
in dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to return to the
complainant the amount of the appearance fee he received for
the hearing of the motion to serve summons by publication
which he never attended.
As regards the complainants charge of gross neglect against

Atty. Bayot, the Court finds the same unsubstantiated. The
Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment
proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the
presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint.33
Rule against conflict of interest.

Anglo VS Valencia
AC 10567, feb. 25, 2015
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The complainant merely alleged that the respondents had

"made themselves scarce" and failed to update him on the
status of the case before the RTC. However, other than his
bare allegations, the complainant failed to present any
evidence that would show that Atty. Bayot was indeed remiss
in his duties to the complainant. In any case, the charge of
neglect against Atty. Bayot was premature, if not unfair,
FACTS: In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he

availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office(law
firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-Valencia,
De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners,
for two (2) consolidated labor cases where he was impleaded
as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was
3G AY 2015-2016
assigned to represent complainant. The labor cases were

terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both
parties.
On September 18, 2009, a criminal case for qualified theft was
filed against complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms
Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a
certain Michael Villacorta. Villacorta, however, was
represented by the law firm, the same law office which
handled complainants labor cases. Complainant filed this
disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they
violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR
The IBP Commissioner found respondents to have violated the
rule on conflict of interest with the exception of Atty. Dabao. In
a Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the IBP Commissioners Report and
Recommendation with modification. Instead of the penalty of
reprimand, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
be dealt with more severely. Complainant filed a motion for
reconsideration thereof, which the IBP Board of Governors
granted.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
In their defense, respondents admitted that they indeed
operated under the name Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De
La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office, but explained that
their association is not a formal partnership, but one that is
subject to certain "arrangements." According to them, each
lawyer contributes a fixed amount every month for the
maintenance of the entire office; and expenses for cases, such
3G AY 2015-2016
as transportation, copying, printing, mailing, and the like are

shouldered by each lawyer separately, allowing each lawyer to
fix and receive his own professional fees exclusively.7 As such,
the lawyers do not discuss their clientele with the other
lawyers and associates, unless they agree that a case be
handled collaboratively. Respondents claim that this has been
the practice of the law firm since its inception. They averred
that complainants labor cases were solely and exclusively
handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm.
Moreover, respondents asserted that the qualified theft case
filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Pealosa, a new
associate who had no knowledge of complainants labor
cases, as he started working for the firm after the termination
thereof. Meanwhile, Atty. Dionela confirmed that he indeed
handled complainants labor cases but averred that it was
terminated on June 13, 2008, and that complainant did not
have any monthly retainer contract
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing
conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of
the CPR
HELD:
YES, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR
provide:
CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,

FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
xxxx
RULE 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
xxxx
CANON 21 A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE
CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN
AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS
TERMINATED.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents

inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test
is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty
to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for
the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which
confidential communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which
will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his
new relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
3G AY 2015-2016
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite

suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.As such, a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a
former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in
the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition
is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste.
In this case, the Court concurs with the IBPs conclusions that
respondents represented conflicting interests and must
therefore be held liable. As the records bear out, respondents
law firm was engaged and, thus, represented complainant in
the labor cases instituted against him. However, after the
termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new
client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of a criminal case for qualified
theft against complainant, its former client, and his wife. As the
Court observes, the law firms unethical acceptance of the
criminal case arose from its failure to organize and implement
a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all
cases assigned to its handling lawyers to the end of, among
others, ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands
clear of any potential conflict of interest. As an organization of
individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective,
assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it
behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the
conflict of interest rule. This lack of coordination, as
respondents law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably renders
its clients secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse
exposure, eroding in the balance the lawyer-client
relationships primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and
confidence. Thus, for this shortcoming, herein respondents, as
the charged members of the law firm, ought to be
administratively sanctioned. Note that the Court finds no

sufficient reason as to why Atty. Dionela should suffer the
greater penalty of suspension. As the Court sees it, all
respondents stand in equal fault for the law firms deficient
organization for which Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of
the CPR had been violated. As such, all of them are meted
with the same penalty of reprimand, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with
more severely.
Piercing the veil of corporation fiction by a Labor

Arbiter; Unless the acts were committed with fraud,
dishonesty, corruption, or malice, a judge may not be held
administratively liable for gross misconduct.
Andres vs Nambi
A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015
Facts: This is a Complaint for Disbarment1 filed against then
Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi. A judgment in a labor case
was decided against M.A. Mercado Construction. The
complainants in the labor case alleged that the assets of M.A.
Mercado Construction was transferred to M.A. Blocks Work,
Inc. Due to the failure of serving the writ of execution
against M.A. Mercado Construction, Labor Arbiter Nambi
issued an Alias Writ of Execution the other company, M.A.
Blocks Work, Inc.
contending that they are not bound by the judgment as they

were not parties to the labor case. They filed a disbarment
case against Atty. Nambi.
Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the

law and of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: No. Nambi's ruling was not arrived at arbitrarily; on the

contrary, he cited grounds based on his personal assessment
of the facts at hand. As culled from the case record, there is
substantial evidence that respondents Maximo A. Mercado
and Aida A. Mercado, who are doing business under the name
and style of M.A. Mercado Construction put up a corporation in
the name of M.A. Block Works, Inc. where individual movants
are one of the incorporators. It is apparent from the foregoing
disquisition that respondents conclusion had some bases and
was not plucked from thin air, so to speak. Clearly, respondent
did not act whimsically or arbitrarily; his ruling could not in any
manner be characterized as imbued with malice, fraud or bad
faith.
There is no basis to hold respondent administratively liable for
gross ignorance of the law.
By way of special appearance, M.A. Blocks Work, Inc.,

together with three of its stockholders who are the
complainants in this administrative case, namely Yolanda A.
Andres, Minette A. Mercado and Elito P. Andres, filed an
Urgent Motion to Quash8 the Amended Alias Writ of Execution,
3G AY 2015-2016

Class Digest - Legal Ethics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Digest - Legal Ethics PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Digest - Legal Ethics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure of the client to pay the lawyer in full amount.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Investigating

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted

Rule XI of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Revocation of

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

defects obtaining in the notarization of the compromise

certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

LAWYER FILED THE APPELLANTS BRIEF FOR HIS

for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of

suit was merely instituted to harass him. The procedural

Canon 18A lawyer shall serve his client with competence

The petition is DENIED but his suspension from the practice of

Rule 18.03.A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND DECEIT

Records show that respondent filed the first motion for

ADELIA V. QUIACHON vs. ATTY. JOSEPH ADORA RAMOS

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

waiting for him to arrive, she noticed a mailman delivering an

IBP Commissioner Almeyda declared that respondent had

ISSUE: W/N the case is properly withdrawn despite finding

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly

All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause. Regardless of

LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH NOT A GROUND

FACTS: The Respondent, Atty. Manuel Molina was charged

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

review has been filed with the Supreme Court. Nonetheless,

Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide his clients

ISSUE: Is Atty. Molina guilty of dishonesty?

FALSE DECLARATION IN CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

FACTS: Complainants in this case individually purchased

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

contracts to sell before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory

HLURB, dismissed Rudexs complaints for rescission and

IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the

Complainants filed an administrative complaint for disbarment

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held

HELD: YES. The Court affirms the IBPs findings with

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

Failure to comply with such requirements shall not be curable

assailing the judgments of default rendered in the first batch of

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY. J.F. DE CHAVEZ

the fact that each of them should have been treated as a

Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of