CANON 18

SENCIO v. CALVADORES
(A.C. No. 5841, January 20, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of the respondent to prosecute the
civil aspect of the case in relation to the death of her son in a vehicular
accident. The total amount of Php 12,000 was duly acknowledged by the
respondent as attorney's fees. Despite repeated assurance of the respondent,
complainant discovered that the respondent did not file any case in her
behalf. The fact was admitted by the respondent and promised to return the
money he received from her. Because the respondent did not bother to return
the money to the complainant, the latter filed the present case. Despite due
notice, the respondent did not filed any answer to the complaint, nor
appeared in any of the hearings set by the Commission on Bar Discipline.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. A lawyer-client relationship between the respondent and the
complainant existed. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Rule 18.03 provides that xxx A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
xxx The respondent violated this by failing to file the case he undertook to
handle.
 CANON 18

REONTOY v. IBADLIT
(A.C. CBD No. 190, January 28, 1998)

FACTS:
A complaint was filed by Corazon Reontoy for the disbarment of Atty.
Liberato R. Ibaldit for having been negligent in handling her case for
partition, accounting and reconveyance then pending with the RTC-Br. 4,
Kalibo, Aklan. Respondent alleges in his defense that after he received the
adverse decision he immediately contacted complainant's brother Proculo
Tomazar and requested the latter to inform complainant that they lost the
case and that after going over the decision he was convinced that appeal was
futile. He also requested Proculo to tell complainant to communicate
immediately with respondent if complainant disagreed with him on his
position not to appeal the RTC decision anymore. Confident that Proculo
had conveyed the message to complainant and having failed to receive any
advice from her respondent intentionally did not file the corresponding
notice of appeal. But after Proculo informed him later in his office that
complainant wished to appeal the decision, he forthwith filed a notice of
appeal, in the interest of justice, on 17 July 1989. Proculo claimed that he had
no knowledge of the subject civil case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable.

HELD:
Yes, A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his
client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. He must use all his
learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from
his client except in accordance with the law. He must present every remedy
or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause,
regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to
his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may
displease the judge or the general public. A lawyer has no authority to waive
his client's right to appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal within the
prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule
18.03, Canon 18, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."

 CANON 18

GARCIA v. ATTY. MANUEL

(A.C. No. 5811, January 20, 2003)

FACTS:
An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against
respondent Atty. Iluminado M. Manuel for gross misconduct for his
ineffective handling of complainant's case and for failure to return the
money which the complainant gave him.

On February 1999 Maritess Garcia, herein complainant, hired the

services of the respondent, Atty. Iluminado Manuel, to evict her estranged
husband from her condominium unit in San Juan M.M, and the respondent
agreed to handle her case at a fee of P70,000. Finding respondent's fees
reasonable, complainant entrusted to respondent all pertinent papers for his
study. An advance fee of P10,000 was then asked by respondent from
complainant. On 17 February 1999, a retainer agreement was entered by
complainant with respondent, calling for the payment of (1) P35,000 payable
in weekly installments of preferably P5,000 but not less than P2,000 and on
March 4 1999, complainant gave respondent P10,000 for the filling fees in the
ejectment case. Complainant made several follow-ups with respondent
inquiring as to whether the ejectment case had been filed. However, through
a telephone conversation with respondent, complainant found out that the
ejectment case had not been filed yet. Agitated by the information,
complainant immediately went to respondent's residence where an
altercation took place, which caused the respondent to return to the
complainant all her documents. However, the money paid to him was never
returned despite demands made by complainant. Aggrieved by the
respondent's actuations, complainant filed with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) the instant complaint for gross misconduct against
respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Manuel violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD:
YES. Canon 18, Rule 18.04 provides that a lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond within reasonable time
to the client's request for information. The Court stated that if indeed
respondent was in good faith in dealing with complainant, he should have
informed or advised the complainant of the status of her case or, at the least,
responded to her inquiries. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of
confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and
fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the
dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are being defended.
It is only thus that the trust and faith in the counsel may remain unimpaired.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Iluminado M. Manuel is found

GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months, effective immediately, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Further,
respondent is ordered to render, within thirty (30) days from notice of this
Resolution, an accounting of all monies received by him from complainant.
So ordered.
 CANON 18

MIWA v. MEDINA
(A.C. No. 5854, September 30, 2003)

FACTS:
Nora Miwa, herein complainant, asked the Court to disbar or suspend
respondent, Atty. Rene Medina, from the practice of law for gross negligence
in the handling of her complaint for quieting of title, recovery of possession,
and damages. Complainant alleged that the respondent's negligent and
deceitful conduct effectively deprived her of a day in court, as a result of
which she lost her case and her property taken by the order of the court.
Respondent admitted his lapses and negligence, but claimed that they were
never intentional, but were due to the heavy burden he shouldered as
campaign manager for a political party during the 2001 elections. He
signified his willingness to face sanctions for his infraction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Medina is guilty of violating Canon 18 of Code
of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
YES. The respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with specific reference to Rule 18.03—A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. In fact, respondent admitted his lapses
and negligence before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline. Hence, the only
question for our resolution is the propriety of the penalty imposed. The
Court notes the respondent's averment that work as campaign manager for
a political party during the 2001 elections took too much of his time, and that
this circumstance might have understandably prejudiced his client's cause.
The Court also reminds lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can
efficiently handle. For it is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to
handle a legal matter, he is also required to prepare adequately and give the
appropriate attention to his legal work. A lawyer owes entire devotion to the
cause of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense and maintenance of his
rights, and the exertion of his learning and utmost ability that nothing can
be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with law. By failing
to show zeal and fidelity to his client's cause, we are constrained to conclude
that respondent acted with gross negligence.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, is

SUSPENDED, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, for one (1)
month from the practice of law. He is also ORDERED to pay a FINE of Two
Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos for gross negligence, resulting in the violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or a similar offense in the future will warrant a more
severe penalty. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant
and be spread upon the records of Atty. Rene O. Medina.

 CANON 18

ZARATE-BUSTAMANTE AND CATABIAN VS. ATTY. LIBATIQUE

(A.C. No. 4990, September 26, 2001)

FACTS:
Complainants Zarate-Bustamante and Savet-Catabian allege that
respondent, Atty. Florentino G. Libatique as their counsel, neglected to
inform them of the status of a case for partition they had earlier filed, which
resulted to the loss of their share in the property subject of partition.
Respondent agreed to handle a new case, for recovery of ownership and
declaration of nullity of an extrajudicial partition, for complainants. The case
was dismissed upon motion of the heirs of Zarate, who cited the 1982 ruling
of the CA upholding Zarate's ownership of the property, which had become
final and executory. Respondent admits that when he filed the new case, he
"had no recollection" regarding the status of the case before the CFI. He
claims to have lost track of the case owing to numerous other commitments
requiring his attention. He faults complainants for failing to inquire from
him about the status of the case, despite having had the opportunity to do
so when they went home to Bauang on several occasions. An administrative
complaint for disbarment was filed by complainants against the respondent
for gross negligence and irresponsible conduct in the performance of his
duties.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Libatique’s negligence to inform the
complainants of the status of a case for partition constitutes a violation of his
oath and of Rule Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. More
specifically, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 provide: Rule 18.03. — A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. 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 client's request for information. Clearly, respondent
breached his duty to his client when he conveniently forgot about the appeal
filed by Zarate. His negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and
diligence required of every lawyer, and his admission of negligence does not
mitigate his liability. He cannot now shift the blame to complainants for
failing to inquire about the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was
his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to
him.
 CANON 18

AROMIN ET AL. VS. ATTY. BONCAVIL

(A.C. No. 5135, September 22, 1999)

FACTS:
Complainants' father engaged the services of respondent as counsel in
two cadastral cases then pending in the RTC, Branch 18, Pagadian City.
When the two cases filed were adversely decided against the complainants,
respondent did not inform the complainants of the same nor filed either a
motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal to prevent the decision from
becoming final. Complainants also alleged that respondent did not file a
written offer of evidence despite the trial court's directive for him to do so
and that it took respondent four years from the time complainant's father
died before he filed a motion to substitute herein complainants in the trial
court. Respondent alleged that he was discharged as counsel by one of the
complainants a day before the cadastral court rendered its decision. The IBP
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer violated Canon 18 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The facts clearly show that respondent violated Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall
serve his client with competence and diligence." By abandoning
complainants' cases, respondent violated Rule 18.03 of the same Code which
requires that "a lawyer not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." The Court did
not sustain the respondent's claim that he did not file either a motion for
reconsideration or a notice of appeal from the decision in the two cases
because he was under the impression from the remark of Julian Ballesteros
that complainants no longer wanted to retain his services. As a member of
the bar, he ought to know that the only way to be relieved as counsel in a
case is to have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the
court relieving him as counsel.

 CANON 18

PEREA VS. ALMADRO

FACTS:
Respondent was complainant’s counsel before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City (Branch 99) where the complainant is being charged
with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the said RTC
issued an order granting Atty. Almadro's motion for leave to file demurrer
to evidence within ten (10) days from said date. All the while, complainant
thought that respondent filed said demurrer and the case against him
dismissed. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant learned that Atty.
Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial court ordered the herein
complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later, a warrant was issued
for his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court and post bail.
Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to respondent's
neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of his hearings which
led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw formally as his
counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty. Almadro's neglect,
complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and livelihood.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As clearly stated in the Code of Professional
Responsibility —
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 shall render him liable.
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 client's request for
information.

It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a

demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the
trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More
than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the
developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and
without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial
court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the
trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.

In other cases, the Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a
person to become his client for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the
cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must
serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire
devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by
the rules of law legally applied. His client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he
may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

Respondent's negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this

tribunal believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette,
mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette
led him to believe that the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he
even tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was
actually mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding
complainant's case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for
disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but
is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
 CANON 18

MOTON V. CADIAO
(A.C. No. 5169)

FACTS:
Elmo Moton filed a civil complaint against Pablito Castillo and The
Philippine Veterans Bank. Moton’s counsel Atty. Cadiao failed to appear in
the pre-trial conference. This resulted to the dismissal of the case. Cadiao
then filed a motion for reconsideration and the pre-trial conference was
reset. Afterwards, Cadiao filed a motion to reset hearing. However he was
absent during the hearing of the same hence the motion was denied. The
reception of evidence was also denied. He later filed a Withdrawal of
Appearance. A complaint was filed against him before the IBP. He was
found liable for negligence of his client’s case.

Cadiao contended that his failure to appear during the hearing was
because he had another case scheduled in Antique which made it impossible
for him to attend both hearings. His reason for the delay of presenting
evidence was because Moton did not furnish him with the original copies of
the evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Cadiao violated Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 provides that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.” When Cadiao accepted the case, he is of the knowledge
that it must be undertaken with dedication and care. His excuse that he had
another case to be attended to cannot be accepted.

The Court agreed with IBP’s Commission on Discipline, finding

Cadiao liable for negligence in the handling of Moton’s case. He was fined
with P2,000 payable to the court within 10 days from notice.

 CANON 18

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. VS ATTY. BENEDICTO

SAQUILABON
(AC No. 3907, April 10, 1997)

FACTS:
Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel of complainant in Civil Case
No. 8058 ("Spouse Marcelino Buco and Cecilia Buco vs. Perla Compania de
Seguros, Inc."), hereinafter also referred to as the "Buco" case, and in Civil
Case No. 480-G ("Philip Natividad vs. Antonio Padron and Perla Compania
de Seguros") or the "Natividad" case.

An adverse decision was rendered against complainant in Buco. Not

satisfied with the decision, complainant, through respondent, sought relief
from the Court of Appeals. On 24 November 1988, the appeal was dismissed
for failure to file the required appeal brief. Complainant moved for
reconsideration of the dismissal. The appellate court reconsidered and gave
complainant a non-extendible period of fifteen days within which to finally
submit the brief. Respondent lawyer again failed to comply constraining
anew the Court of Appeals to dismiss, on 14 April 1989, the appeal.
Complainant's subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. The
complainant was ultimately made to pay certain amounts to the spouses
Buco. Respondent attributed his failure to file the appellant's brief to an
oversight or negligence of the complainant's manager, Dionisio Quinto, at
its Cabanatuan City branch. Quinto, a law graduate, allegedly undertook the
printing of the brief, which respondent had prepared and submitted to
Quinto, and the filing thereof with the Court of Appeals.

Atty. Saquilabon was the legal counsel for herein complainant in the
Natividad case. Here, respondent filed with the trial court a motion for an
extension to file an answer to the complaint but he failed, nevertheless, to
file the answer on time. The complainant (the defendant therein) was
declared in default, thus allowing the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-
parte. Respondent lawyer's subsequent compliance was merely noted by the
trial court. After an adverse judgment was rendered against complainant,
respondent acting on his own, filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 10 February 1981 for non-
payment of the required docket fee. The failure to file an answer in the
Natividad case was said to be due to the fault of complainant's branch
manager, Bienvenido S. Pascual, of Santiago, Isabela. According to
respondent, not only did Pascual fail to give respondent a copy of the
complaint but Pascual also neglected to provide the docket fees required on
appeal to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of the respondent violate of Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. Canon 18, Rule 18.03 states that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable. In Ford vs. Daitol, 250 SCRA 7, a lawyer's failure to file
brief for his client was held to amount to inexcusable negligence; thus: "An
attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and
with utmost diligence. (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159) A
failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence
on his part. (People vs. Villar, 46 SCRA 107) The respondent has indeed
committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to
the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of
justice. (People vs. Daban, 43 SCRA 185; People vs. Estocada, 43 SCRA 515)

His arrangements with Quinto did not relieve respondent from his
responsibility to ensure that his client's cause is not unnecessarily put to
possible jeopardy. The dismissal of the appeal on 24 November 1988 for
Quinto's failure to submit the appeal brief on time should have been enough
warning for respondent not to entrust to anyone else, definitely not to
Quinto, the filing of the brief following the reconsideration of the dismissal
by the appellate court and the grant of the non-extendible period of fifteen
days.
 CANON 18

TEODULFO BASAS VS ATTY. MIGUEL ICAWAT

(AC No. 4282, August 24, 2000)

FACTS:
Complainant was one of several workers who filed three separate
complaints for illegal dismissal before the NLRC against their employer.
Respondent was their lawyer. The complainants therein demanded payment
of termination pay, accrued leave benefits, 13th month pay, and moral
damages. Finding that the workers were validly terminated after completion
of the project for which they were hired, the labor arbiter rendered a decision
in favor of the employer. However, the employer was ordered to pay the
workers' claims for wage differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive
leave pay, and attorney's fees. The workers informed the respondent that
they wanted to appeal the decision. Respondent filed a notice of appeal, but
did not file a memorandum of appeal as required by the Rules of Procedure
of the NLRC. Sensing that the respondent had no intention of filing the
required memorandum, complainant and his co-workers asked respondent
to just withdraw from the case. Instead of withdrawing, respondent
threatened to sue their group and the new lawyer they would hire. In the
same case, complainant claimed that the respondent gave a receipt for filing
fee for the amount of only P180.00 when in fact they gave him P280.00.
Hence, a letter-complaint against respondent for his alleged negligence in
handling their case was filed before the Supreme Court by the complainant.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP found respondent liable
for negligence and unprofessional conduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
The Court found that the respondent manifestly fell short of the
diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 provides that "A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.” As we reiterated in Aromin,
etal. v. Boncavil, a lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken
or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This
simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land he may expect
his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

 CANON 19

TOLENTINO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(G.R. No. 218536, January 26, 2016)

FACTS:
Tolentino and Manalo both ran for the position of Barangay Captain
in Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City during the 2013 barangay elections. The
election was held on October 28, 2013 and Manalo was proclaimed the
winner. Tolentino immediately filed an election protest and during the
revision of votes, Tolentino was proclaimed as the winner. Then, Manalo
filed a Notice of Appeal. Then, petitioner moved for execution pending
appeal and Manalo opposed the motion.

The 60-day TRO lapsed without the Commission issuing a writ of

preliminary injunction rendering decision. The petitioner requested the
implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal and it was denied
because it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain any further motions after it
had transmitted the records of the case to the Commission.

ISSUE:
Whether or not violated Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides: xxx A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law. xxx particularly Rule 19.01 : xxx A lawyer shall employ fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding. xxx

In the case at bar, Atty. Ramon D. Facun already knew of that the
MTCC refused to enforce the writ of execution pending the appeal after
having lost jurisdiction over the case., yet to advance the interests of his
client, he threatened an election officer with the filing of a baseless contempt
charge in violation of Canon 19.
 While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients
and zeal in the defense of their client’s right, they should not forget that first
and foremost, they are officers of the court bound to exert every effort to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Thus, Atty.
Ramon D. Facun is warned that his threatening action in this case
dangerously lies at the margins of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and did not spill over into a violation of this Rule because of
the liberality of this Court.
 CANON 19

GONZALES V. SABACAJAN
(A.C. No. 4380, October 13, 1995)

FACTS:
Complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de
Oro City that the complainants' owner's duplicate of title covering their
lands. The respondent admitted and confirmed to the complainants that
their titles are in his custody and the respondent’s challenge is a
manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his legal
profession over the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the complainants.
Respondent denies complainants' allegation that he is arrogant, in contrast
to the innocence, simplicity and ignorance of said complainants. He
contends that the truth of the matter is that complainants have been charged
with a number of criminal and civil complaints before different courts.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

HELD:
Yes. Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that xxx A lawyer shall employ fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding. xxx In the case at bar, respondent has closely skirted his
proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same. Respondent has not
exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the
legal affairs of their clients. The Court directs that respondent should return
the certificates of title of complaints. Thus, respondent is suspended from
the practice of law until the disputed certificates have been returned and the
receipts are duly acknowledged by complainants.

 CANON 19

ONG v. ATTY. UNTO

(A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002)

FACTS:
The complainant, Alex Ong a businessman from Dumaguete City,
received a demand-letter in connection with the claim of support of Nemesia
Garganian and her child. The respondent, Atty Elpidio D. Unto as the legal
counsel of Nemesia, issued the said letter. Thereafter, Nemesia wrote a letter
addressed to the emissary of the complainant stating her financial demands
and failure to comply with it will result to additional complaints that will be
filed against him. Ong then did not comply with the demands against him
because Ong alleged that the real father of Nemesia’s child is his brother.
Consequently, the respondent then filed several criminal and administrative
complaints. Alex Ong then filed the case for disbarment against the
respondent alleging that the respondent manufactured the complaints
against him in order to blackmail and force him to comply with the
demands.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violates the code of professional
responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, considering the facts of this case, the court find that respondent
has not exercised the good faith required of a lawyer in handling the legal
affairs of his client. It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the
complainant to comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various
charges against the latter. When the complainant did not heed his warning,
he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative
cases against the complainant. We find the respondent's action to be
malicious, as the cases he instituted against the complainant did not have
any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms. Nemesia. Clearly,
the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His
behavior is inexcusable.
 CANON 19

SMALL v. ATTY. BANARES

(A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007)

FACTS:
On August 30 2001, the complainant, Melvin D. Small engaged the
service of the respondent, Atty. Jerry Banares regarding complaints to be
filed against Lyneth Amar. Small then paid P20, 000 as acceptance fee. On
September 4 2001, Small gave respondent P60,000 as filing fees for the cases
against Amar. Thereafter, respondent talk to Amar and wrote a demand-
letter and tell Small to wait as he arrange the documents for the complaint.
The complainant consistently communicate the respondent however the
respondent failed to present any documents. Small then demand to refund
the fees that he gave. But respondent failed to return the money. Hence,
complainant filed a case for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violates the code of professional ethics.

HELD:
Yes, The Code mandates that every lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys of his client that may come into his possession. Furthermore, a
lawyer shall account for all money received from the client and shall deliver
the funds of the client upon demand. The records show that after receiving
P80,000 respondent was never heard from again. Respondent failed to give
complainant an update on the status of the cases. Moreover, it appears that
respondent failed to file the appropriate cases against Amar.

 CANON 19

ATTY. ESPINA VS. ATTY. CHAVEZ

(A.C. No. 7250, April 20, 2015)

FACTS:
During the pendency of the ejectment suit filed by complainant Atty.
Ricardo M. Espina who represented his parents against Remedios Enguio,
filed a complaint for Disbarment/Suspension with the IBP against Enguio’s
representative, respondent Atty. Jesus G. Chavez for violation of Canon 19,
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Espina contends
that Atty. Chavez violated the said Canon when he indispensably
participated in the filing of the falsification complaint against him, his wife
and his parents. The falsification case was filed, according to Atty. Espina,
solely for the purpose of gaining an improper advantage and leverage in the
ejectment case. Atty. Espina further argues that Atty. Chavez participated in
the filing of the baseless criminal complaint by (i) goading Enguio to file the
criminal complaint and (ii) ensuring that the criminal complaint was acted
upon by the office the Provincial Prosecutor by sending the transmittal letter
to the said office under Atty. Chavez's signature. Both the ejectment and
falsification complaints were eventually dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Chavez violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility when he prepared and transmitted the
complaint of Remedios Enguio for falsification to the Provincial Prosecutor
of Agusan del Norte.

HELD:
No. The IBP Commissioner held that the preparation and transmittal
of the criminal complaint to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office is not per se
an unfair and dishonest means employed by Atty. Chavez. He concluded
that his assessment on the merit of the criminal complaint might have been
erroneous but the act of endorsing the affidavit-complaint to the Provincial
Prosecutor did not per se violate Rule 19.01. Atty. Espina did not only fail to
substantiate his allegation that Atty. Chavez masterminded the filing of the
criminal complaint for falsification; he also failed to show that the criminal
complaint was patently frivolous, meritless and groundless, and that it was
filed to gain improper advantage in favor of his client. Unless the criminal
complaint is patently frivolous and obviously meant to secure an improper
advantage, a lawyer who files such criminal complaint should not be
automatically deemed to have violated Rule 19.01. The
Disbarment/Suspension complaint against Atty. Jesus G. Chavez was
dismissed.
 CANON 19

VILLANUEVA VS. ATTY. DELORIA

(A.C. No. 5018, January 26, 2007)

FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Amado B. Deloria appeared as counsel for spouses
De Gracia in the HLRB case entitled "Spouses Conrado De Gracia v. Estate
of Jaime Gonzales, et al.” The said case was assigned to complainant Rogelio
H. Villanueva as Housing and Land Use Arbiter. Villanueva avers that a
decision in that case was rendered, requiring the Estate of Jaime Gonzales to
refund to the spouses De Gracia P69,000.00 plus interest at the prevailing
commercial interest rates. Atty. Deloria filed a Motion for Issuance of
Substitute Judgment and for Consignation claiming that the Estate of Jaime
Gonzales does not want to pay interest based on commercial interest rates.
This allegation is belied by two motions filed by counsel for the Estate of
Jaime Gonzales which merely seek to clarify the precise interest rate
applicable to the case in order for it to fully comply with the decision.
Moreover, according to complainant, respondent offered him 50% of the
recoverable amount in the case if he resolves the latter's motion favorably.
Atty. Deloria also allegedly used his connections in the HLURB to prevent
him from releasing an Order denying the former's motion and to prevail
upon the agency's Legal Services Group to interpret the term "commercial
rate of interest" in a way that is favorable to his client's case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent lawyer violated Canon 19of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Atty. Deloria's misrepresentation is allegedly a violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility Canons, including Canon 19: “A lawyer shall
respresent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law”. However, The
case was dismissed for lack of merit. The report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner appears to be based solely on the Rollo of the
case which the Court sent to the IBP. The Investigating Commissioner did
not conduct any hearing to determine the veracity of the allegations in
Villanueva's Complaint and the truthfulness of Atty. Deloria's answers
thereto. A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not
be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons. The instant
administrative case is remanded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
further proceedings.

 CANON 19

BELLEZA V. MACASA
(A.C. No. 7815)

FACTS:
On November 2004, complainant availed the legal services of one Atty.
Alan Macasa concerning a criminal case which involved complainant’s son.
Macasa agreed to handle the case for P30,000 and was paid the same. No
receipt was issued by the respondent. In addition, he asked the complainant
for P18,000 for the purpose of posting a bond for the provisional liberty of
her son. The next day the complainant found out that the respondent did not
remit the amount to the court. She was ignored consistently by the
respondent when she demanded for the return of her money. She eventually
availed the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense.

She also filed a complaint for disbarment against Macasa before the
Negros Occidental Chapter of the IBP. Respondent was ordered to reply to
the complaint within 15 days from receipt thereof. He filed for extensions for
three times but never submitted an answer. He was found guilty of Rules
12.03, 16.01, 16.02, and Canons 1, 7, 17, 18, 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent was guilty of violating Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Canon 19 provides that “A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law.” Macasa’s devotion and time to his client’s
case were never evident. Instead of the effective and efficient legal assistance
expected of him, he blatantly abandoned the cause of his client. His actions
prejudiced the complainant’s son and deprived him of his constitutional
right to counsel. His failure to use the amount entrusted to him for posting
the bond also impeded the person’s constitutional right to bail.

For violating the aforementioned canons and Sections 13 and 14 of the

Constitution, Atty. Macasa was disbarred from the practice of law and was
ordered to return the P30,000 and P18,000 to the complainant with interest
at 12% per annum.
 CANON 19

ATTY. BRIONES V. ATTY. JIMENEZ

(A.C. No. 6691, April 27, 2007)

FACTS:
Complainant Atty. George C. Briones is the Special Administrator of
the Estate of Luz J. Henson. Respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is the
counsel for the Heirs of the late Luz J. Henson (Heirs).

On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) a notice of appeal questioning the payment of commission to Atty.
Briones from the Order dated April 3, 2002. One directive is to deliver the
residue of the estate of the late Luz J. Henson to the heirs in proportion to
their shares. From the share of Lilia J. Henson-Cruz, there shall be deducted
the advances made to her.

Respondent filed an unfounded criminal complaint against

complainant to obtain an improper advantage and coerce complainant to
deliver to the Heirs the residue of the estate of the late Luz J. Henson without
any writ of execution or any pronouncement as to the finality of the Order;
and in executing an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint.

The Court resolved to docket the complaint against Atty. Jimenez as a

regular administrative complaint; referred said Complaint to the Office of
the Bar Confidant; and required Atty. Jimenez to comment.

Respondent filed his Comment on April 6, 2005. He contends that

when he assisted the Heirs in filing a criminal case against complainant, he
was merely fulfilling his legal duty to take the necessary steps to protect the
interests of his clients; that it cannot serve as basis for filing an administrative
case against him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case of proceeding.

Records reveal that before respondent assisted the Heirs in filing the
criminal complaint against herein complainant, he sent demand letters to the
latter to comply with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the residue of the
estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. Considering that complainant
did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal
complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the
court. However, the filing of the criminal complaint was evidently
premature because the RTC have not determine and define the residue
referred to in the subject Order.

Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper
motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate
delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal
prosecution.

 CANON 19

AURORA AGUILAR-DYQUIANGCO VS ATTY. DIANA LYNN M.

ARELLANO
(A.C. No. 10541, July 12, 2016)

FACTS:
Sometime in 2006, Complainant engaged Respondent's services for the
purpose of filing a case for collection of sum of money against a certain Delia
Antigua ("Antigua"), advancing P1 0,000.00 for filing fees and P2,000.00 as
part of the attorney's fees out of the agreed amount of P20,000.00. Three
years later, Complainant, upon inquiry with the Regional Trial Court
("RTC") of San Fernando, La Union, discovered that Respondent failed to file
her case against Antigua. Consequently, Complainant sent a letter to
Respondent terminating Respondent's services and demanding the return of
the said money and documents she entrusted to Respondent, who, in turn,
refused to return Complainant's documents alleging that she was enforcing
her retainer's lien.

During the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them,

Respondent frequently borrowed money from Complainant and her
husband, Antonio Dyquiangco ("Antonio") , for which Respondent issued
postdated checks in July 2008 ("checks issued in July 2008") as security.
Complainant and Antonio later stopped lending money to Respondent
when they discovered that she was engaged in "kiting", that is, using the
newer loans to pay off the previous loans she had obtained.

Upon presentment by Complainant, all of the said checks were

dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and closure of accounts. Hence,
Complainant filed complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 ("BP
Blg. 22") against Respondent. Complainant and her husband sent a demand
letter dated August 26, 2009 to Respondent for the payment of the
dishonored checks issued in July 2008. The Respondent's failure to pay
despite demand resulted in letter exchanges between the parties dated
September 28, 2009 and October 7, 2009. The October 7, 2009 demand letter
by Complainant was also sent to Respondent's mother, Florescita M.
Arellano. This exchange of letters, which the Respondent believed to be
libelous, led to the filing of two (2) complaints for Libel against Complainant
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila and the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of La Union, both of which were eventually dismissed
for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 19 particularly Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Court noted that Respondent's act of filing two (2) baseless
complaints for libel against Complainant in two (2) different venues (Manila
and San Fernando City, La Union) for the same alleged act is a clear violation
of the Lawyer's Oath — which states that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
or consent to the same."

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a

lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law”. In
particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a "lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding." Under
this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or
baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed
to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own
cases against the lawyer's client.
 CANON 19

MARIA CRISTINA PITCHER VS ATTY. RUSTICO GAGATE

(AC No. 9532, October 8, 2013)

FACTS:
Complainant and respondent met with Katherine Moscoso Bantegui
(Bantegui), a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, in order to discuss the
settlement of David's interest in the company. They agreed to another
meeting which was, however, postponed by Bantegui. Suspecting that the
latter was merely stalling for time in order to hide something, respondent
insisted that the appointment proceed as scheduled. Eventually, the parties
agreed to meet at the company premises on June 28, 2004. However, prior to
the scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by respondent to
put a paper seal on the door of the said premises, assuring her that the same
was legal. On the scheduled meeting, Bantegui expressed disappointment
over the actions of complainant and respondent, which impelled her to just
leave the matter for the court to settle. She then asked them to leave, locked
the offie and refused to give them a duplicate key.

Subsequently, however, respondent, without the consent of Bantegui,

caused the change in the lock of the Consulting Edge office door, which
prevented the employees thereof from entering and carrying on the
operations of the company. This prompted Bantegui to file before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Makati (Prosecutor's Office) a complaint for grave
coercion against complainant and respondent. Respondent advised
complainant to go into hiding until he had filed the necessary motions in
court. Eventually, however, respondent abandoned the grave coercion case
and stopped communicating with complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether the actions of the respondent violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Court held that the respondent failed to represent her
competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice
beyond the proper bounds of law. It bears emphasis that complainant's right
over the properties of her deceased husband, David, has yet to be sufficiently
established. As such, the highhanded action taken by respondent to enforce
complainant's claim of ownership over the latter's interest in Consulting
Edge — i.e., causing the change of the office door lock which thereby
prevented the free ingress and egress of the employees of the said company
— was highly improper. Verily, a person cannot take the law into his own
hands, regardless of the merits of his theory. In the same light, respondent's
act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the
criminal case can hardly be maintained as proper legal advice since the same
constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of law. By virtue of the
foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty to his client to use peaceful
and lawful methods in seeking justice, in violation of Rule 19.01, Canon 19
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.