canons 21 22
DESCRIPTION
EthicsTRANSCRIPT
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 1/20
SECOND DIVISION[A.C. No. 5108. May 26, 2005]
ROSA F. MERCADO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent .D E C I S I O N
UNO, J.!Rosa F. Mercado fled the instant administrative complaint against Att. !"lito D. Vitriolo#
see$ing his dis%arment &rom the practice o& la'. (he complainant alleged that respondentmalicio"sl instit"ted a criminal case &or &alsifcation o& p"%lic doc"ment against her# a &ormerclient# %ased on confdential in&ormation gained &rom their attorne)client relationship.
*et "s frst hear$en to the &acts.Complainant is a Senior Ed"cation +rogram Specialist o& the Standards Development
Division# O,ce o& +rograms and Standards 'hile respondent is a Dep"t E-ec"tive Director IVo& the Commission on igher Ed"cation /CED0.123
Complainant4s h"s%and fled Civil Case No. 56789 entitled :R"%en ;. Mercado v. Rosa C.Francisco#< &or ann"lment o& their marriage 'ith the Regional (rial Co"rt /R(C0 o& +asig Cit.
(his ann"lment case had %een dismissed % the trial co"rt# and the dismissal %ecame fnal ande-ec"tor on !"l 27# 2==>.1>3
In A"g"st 2==># Att. Anastacio +. de *eon# co"nsel o& complainant# died. On Fe%r"ar 9#2==5# respondent entered his appearance %e&ore the trial co"rt as colla%orating co"nsel &orcomplainant.183
On March 2?# 2==5# respondent fled his Notice o& S"%stit"tion o& Co"nsel #153 in&ormingthe R(C o& +asig Cit that he has %een appointed as co"nsel &or the complainant# ins"%stit"tion o& Att. de *eon.
It also appears that on April 28# 2===# respondent fled a criminal action againstcomplainant %e&ore the O,ce o& the Cit +rosec"tor# +asig Cit# entitled :Att. !"lito Vitriolo# etal. v. Rose Dela Cr"@ F. Mercado#< and doc$eted as I.S. No. +S; ==)=>8# &or violation o& Articles 292 and 29> /&alsifcation o& p"%lic doc"ment0 o& the Revised +enal Code. 173 Respondent alleged that complainant made &alse entries in the Certifcates o& *ive Birth o& her
children# Angelica and ateln Anne. More specifcall# complainant allegedl indicated in saidCertifcates o& *ive Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernande@# and that theirmarriage 'as solemni@ed on April 22# 2=9=# 'hen in tr"th# she is legall married to R"%en ;.Mercado and their marriage too$ place on April 22# 2=9.
Complainant denied the acc"sations o& respondent against her. She denied "sing another name than :Rosa F. Mercado.< She also insisted that she has gotten married onl once#on April 22# 2=9# to R"%en ;. Mercado.
In addition# complainant Mercado cited other charges against respondent that arepending %e&ore or decided "pon % other tri%"nals /20 li%el s"it %e&ore the O,ce o& the Cit+rosec"tor# +asig Cit1?3 />0 administrative case &or dishonest# grave miscond"ct# cond"ctpre"dicial to the %est interest o& the service# p"rs"it o& private %"siness# vocation orpro&ession 'itho"t the permission reG"ired % Civil Service r"les and reg"lations# andviolations o& the :Anti);ra&t and Corr"pt +ractices Act#< %e&ore the then +residentialCommission Against ;ra&t and Corr"ption193/80 complaint &or dishonest# grave miscond"ct#and cond"ct pre"dicial to the %est interest o& the service %e&ore the O,ce o& the Om%"dsman#'here he 'as &o"nd g"ilt o& miscond"ct and meted o"t the penalt o& one month s"spension'itho"t pa13 and# /50 the In&ormation &or violation o& Section 9/%0/>0 o& Rep"%lic Act No. ?928#
as amended# other'ise $no'n as the Code o& Cond"ct and Ethical Standards &or +"%licO,cials and Emploees %e&ore the Sandigan%aan.1=3
Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint &or &alsifcation o& p"%licdoc"ment /I.S. No. +S; ==)=>80 disclosed confdential &acts and in&ormation relating to thecivil case &or ann"lment# then handled % respondent Vitriolo as her co"nsel. (his promptedcomplainant Mercado to %ring this action against respondent. She claims that# in fling thecriminal case &or &alsifcation# respondent is g"ilt o& %reaching their privileged andconfdential la'er)client relationship# and sho"ld %e dis%arred.
Respondent fled his CommentHMotion to Dismiss on Novem%er 8# 2=== 'here healleged that the complaint &or dis%arment 'as all hearsa# misleading and irrelevant %eca"seall the allegations leveled against him are s"%ect o& separate &act)fnding %odies. Respondentclaimed that the pending cases against him are not gro"nds &or dis%arment# and that he ispres"med to %e innocent "ntil proven other'ise.1263 e also states that the decision o& theOm%"dsman fnding him g"ilt o& miscond"ct and imposing "pon him the penalt o& s"spension &or one month 'itho"t pa is on appeal 'ith the Co"rt o& Appeals. e adds that he'as &o"nd g"ilt# onl o& simple miscond"ct# 'hich he committed in good &aith.1223
In addition# respondent maintains that his fling o& the criminal complaint &or &alsifcation
o& p"%lic doc"ments against complainant does not violate the r"le on privilegedcomm"nication %et'een attorne and client %eca"se the %ases o& the &alsifcation case are
t'o certifcates o& live %irth 'hich are p"%lic doc"ments and in no 'a connected 'ith theconfdence ta$en d"ring the engagement o& respondent as co"nsel. According to respondent#the complainant confded to him as then co"nsel onl matters o& &acts relating to theann"lment case. Nothing 'as said a%o"t the alleged &alsifcation o& the entries in the %irthcertifcates o& her t'o da"ghters. (he %irth certifcates are fled in the Records Division o& CED and are accessi%le to anone.12>3
In a Resol"tion dated Fe%r"ar =# >666# this Co"rt re&erred the administrative case to theIntegrated Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or investigation# report and recommendation.1283
(he IB+ Commission on Bar Discipline set t'o dates &or hearing %"t complainant &ailedto appear in %oth. Investigating Commissioner Rosalina R. Datiles th"s granted respondent4smotion to fle his memorand"m# and the case 'as s"%mitted &or resol"tion %ased on the
pleadings s"%mitted % the parties.1253
On !"ne >2# >668# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors approved the report o& investigatingcommissioner Datiles# fnding the respondent g"ilt o& violating the r"le on privilegedcomm"nication %et'een attorne and client# and recommending his s"spension &rom thepractice o& la' &or one /20 ear.
On A"g"st ?# >668# complainant# "pon receiving a cop o& the IB+ report andrecommendation# 'rote Chie& !"stice ilario Davide# !r.# a letter o& desistance. She stated thata&ter the passage o& so man ears# she has no' &o"nd &orgiveness &or those 'ho have'ronged her.
At the o"tset# 'e stress that 'e shall not inG"ire into the merits o& the vario"s criminaland administrative cases fled against respondent. It is the d"t o& the tri%"nals 'here thesecases are pending to determine the g"ilt or innocence o& the respondent.
e also emphasi@e that the Co"rt is not %o"nd % an 'ithdra'al o& the complaint ordesistance % the complainant. (he letter o& complainant to the Chie& !"stice imparting&orgiveness "pon respondent is inconseG"ential in dis%arment proceedings.
e no' resolve 'hether respondent violated the r"le on privileged comm"nication%et'een attorne and client 'hen he fled a criminal case &or &alsifcation o& p"%lic doc"ment
against his &ormer client.A %rie& disc"ssion o& the nat"re o& the relationship %et'een attorne and client and ther"le on attorne)client privilege that is designed to protect s"ch relation is in order.
In engaging the services o& an attorne# the client reposes on him special po'ers o& tr"stand confdence. (heir relationship is strictl personal and highl confdential and fd"ciar.
(he relation is o& s"ch delicate# e-acting and confdential nat"re that is reG"ired % necessitand p"%lic interest.1273 Onl % s"ch confdentialit and protection 'ill a person %e enco"ragedto repose his confdence in an attorne. (he hpothesis is that a%stinence &rom see$ing legaladvice in a good ca"se is an evil 'hich is &atal to the administration o& "stice. 12?3 (h"s# thepreservation and protection o& that relation 'ill enco"rage a client to entr"st his legalpro%lems to an attorne# 'hich is o& paramo"nt importance to the administration o& "stice.1293 One r"le adopted to serve this p"rpose is the attorne)client privilegeJ an attorne is to$eep inviolate his client4s secrets or confdence and not to a%"se them. 123 (h"s# the d"t o& ala'er to preserve his client4s secrets and confdence o"tlasts the termination o& the attorne)client relationship#12=3 and contin"es even a&ter the client4s death.1>63 It is the glor o& the legalpro&ession that its fdelit to its client can %e depended on# and that a man ma sa&el go to ala'er and converse 'ith him "pon his rights or s"pposed rights in an litigation 'ith a%sol"te
ass"rance that the la'er4s tong"e is tied &rom ever disclosing it.1>23
ith &"ll disclos"re o& the&acts o& the case % the client to his attorne# adeG"ate legal representation 'ill res"lt in theascertainment and en&orcement o& rights or the prosec"tion or de&ense o& the client4s ca"se.
No'# 'e go to the r"le on attorne)client privilege. Dean igmore cites the &actorsessential to esta%lish the e-istence o& the privilege# viz J/20 here legal advice o& an $ind is so"ght />0 &rom a pro&essional legal adviser in hiscapacit as s"ch# /80 the comm"nications relating to that p"rpose# /50 made in confdence /70% the client# /?0 are at his instance permanentl protected /90 &rom disclos"re % himsel& or% the legal advisor# /0 e-cept the protection %e 'aived.1>>3
In fne# the &actors are as &ollo'sJ/20 (here e-ists an attorne)client relationship# or a prospective attorne)client
relationship# and it is % reason o& this relationship that the client made the comm"nication.Matters disclosed % a prospective client to a la'er are protected % the r"le on
privileged comm"nication even i& the prospective client does not therea&ter retain the la'eror the latter declines the emploment.1>83 (he reason &or this is to ma$e the prospective client&ree to disc"ss 'hatever he 'ishes 'ith the la'er 'itho"t &ear that 'hat he tells the la'er'ill %e div"lged or "sed against him# and &or the la'er to %e eG"all &ree to o%tain
in&ormation &rom the prospective client.
1>53
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 2/20
On the other hand# a comm"nication &rom a /prospective0 client to a la'er &or somep"rpose other than on acco"nt o& the /prospective0 attorne)client relation is not privileged.Instr"ctive is the case o& "#$%#& '. a(a)*a,1>73 'here the client and his 'i&e leased to theirattorne a 2#8>)hectare agric"lt"ral land &or a period o& ten ears. In their contract# theparties agreed# among others# that a specifed portion o& the lease rentals 'o"ld %e paid to theclient)lessors# and the remainder 'o"ld %e delivered % co"nsel)lessee to clientKs listedcreditors. (he client alleged that the list o& creditors 'hich he had :confdentiall< s"ppliedco"nsel &or the p"rpose o& carring o"t the terms o& pament contained in the lease contract'as disclosed % co"nsel# in violation o& their la'er)client relation# to parties 'hose interestsare adverse to those o& the client. As the client himsel&# ho'ever# states# in the e-ec"tion o& the terms o& the a&oresaid lease contract %et'een the parties# he &"rnished co"nsel 'ith the
:confdential< list o& his creditors. e r"led that this indicates that client delivered the list o& his creditors to co"nsel not %eca"se o& the pro&essional relation then e-isting %et'een them#%"t on acco"nt o& the lease agreement. e then held that a violation o& the confdence thataccompanied the deliver o& that list 'o"ld parta$e more o& a private and civil 'rong than o& a%reach o& the fdelit o'ing &rom a la'er to his client.
/>0 (he client made the comm"nication in confdence. (he mere relation o& attorne and client does not raise a pres"mption o& confdentialit.
1>?3 (he client m"st intend the comm"nication to %e confdential.1>93
A confdential comm"nication re&ers to in&ormation transmitted % vol"ntar act o& disclos"re %et'een attorne and client in confdence and % means 'hich# so &ar as the clientis a'are# discloses the in&ormation to no third person other than one reasona%l necessar &orthe transmission o& the in&ormation or the accomplishment o& the p"rpose &or 'hich it 'asgiven.1>3
O"r "rispr"dence on the matter rests on G"iescent gro"nd. (h"s# a compromiseagreement prepared % a la'er p"rs"ant to the instr"ction o& his client and delivered to theopposing part#1>=3 an oLer and co"nter)oLer &or settlement#1863 or a doc"ment given % a clientto his co"nsel not in his pro&essional capacit#1823 are not privileged comm"nications# the
element o& confdentialit not %eing present.18>3
/80 (he legal advice m"st %e so"ght &rom the attorne in his pro&essionalcapacit.1883
(he comm"nication made % a client to his attorne m"st not %e intended &or merein&ormation# %"t &or the p"rpose o& see$ing legal advice &rom his attorne as to his rights oro%ligations. (he comm"nication m"st have %een transmitted % a client to his attorne &or thep"rpose o& see$ing legal advice.1853
I& the client see$s an acco"nting service# 1873 or %"siness or personal assistance#18?3 andnot legal advice# the privilege does not attach to a comm"nication disclosed &or s"ch p"rpose.
Appling all these r"les to the case at %ar# 'e hold that the evidence on record &ails tos"%stantiate complainant4s allegations. e note that complainant did not even speci& thealleged comm"nication in confdence disclosed % respondent. All her claims 'ere co"ched ingeneral terms and lac$ed specifcit. She contends that respondent violated the r"le onprivileged comm"nication 'hen he instit"ted a criminal action against her &or &alsifcation o& p"%lic doc"ments %eca"se the criminal complaint disclosed &acts relating to the civil case &orann"lment then handled % respondent. She did not# ho'ever# spell o"t these &acts 'hich 'illdetermine the merit o& her complaint. (he Co"rt cannot %e involved in a g"essing game as to
the e-istence o& &acts 'hich the complainant m"st prove.Indeed# complainant &ailed to attend the hearings at the IB+. itho"t an testimon&rom the complainant as to the specifc confdential in&ormation allegedl div"lged %respondent 'itho"t her consent# it is di,c"lt# i& not impossi%le to determine i& there 'as anviolation o& the r"le on privileged comm"nication. S"ch confdential in&ormation is a cr"ciallin$ in esta%lishing a %reach o& the r"le on privileged comm"nication %et'een attorne andclient. It is not eno"gh to merel assert the attorne)client privilege.1893 (he %"rden o& provingthat the privilege applies is placed "pon the part asserting the privilege.183
IN VIE+ +EREOF# the complaint against respondent Att. !"lito D. Vitriolo is here%DISMISSED &or lac$ o& merit.
SO ORDERED. Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., conc"r.Tinga, J., o"t o& the co"ntr.
Rep"%lic o& the +hilippines
SUREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. -/5 O*o#& 2, 15
CYNTIA 3. ROSACIA, complainant#
vs.
ATTY. 3ENJAMIN 3. 3ULALACAO, respondent.
R E S O * ( I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
Complainant Cnthia B. Rosacia# president o& (acma# +hils.# Inc.# a d"l registered corporation#
fled a complaint &or dis%arment dated Octo%er >7# 2==2# against herein respondent Att.
Benamin B. B"lalacao. Acting on the complaint# the Co"rt in a resol"tion dated Fe%r"ar >5#
2==># resolved to re&er the case to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or investigation#
report and recommendation. Commissioner Victor C. Fernande@# the IB+ investigating
commissioner# &o"nd that respondent %reached his oath o& o,ce and accordingl
recommended respondentKs s"spension &rom the practice o& la' &or three /80 months. 1 In a
resol"tion dated !"l 86# 2==5# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors resolved to adopt and approve the
commissionerKs report and recommendation. 2
As &o"nd % the IB+# the "ndisp"ted &acts are as &ollo'sJ
On !"ne 2# 2==6# % virt"e o& a 'ritten Agreement /E-h. 8)a0# respondent
Att. Benamin B. B"lalacao 'as hired as retained co"nsel o& a corporation
% the name o& (acma +hils.# Inc.
On Octo%er 82# 2==6# the la'er)client relationship %et'een the
respondent and (acma +hils.# Inc. 'as severed as sho'n % another
agreement o& even date /E-h. 8)%0.
On !"l# 2==2# or a&ter almost nine /=0 months &rom the date respondentKs
retainer agreement 'ith (acma# +hils.# Inc. 'as terminated# several
emploees o& the corporation cons"lted the respondent &or the p"rpose o&
fling an action &or illegal dismissal. (herea&ter# he agreed to handle the
case &or the said emploees as against (acma# +hils.# Inc. % fling a
complaint %e&ore the National *a%or Relations Commission# and appearing
in their %ehal&. -
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 3/20
(he sole iss"e to %e addressed is 'hether or not respondent %reached his oath o& o,ce &or
representing the emploees o& his &ormer client# (acma# +hils.# Inc.# a&ter the termination o&
their attorne)client relationship. e agree 'ith the fndings o& the IB+ that respondent
%reached his oath o& o,ce. Respondent does not no' disp"te this. In &act# in his motion &or
reconsideration# respondent admitted that he did commit an act %ordering on grave
miscond"ct# i& not o"tright violation o& his attorneKs oath. /
o'ever# respondent is pleading
&or the Co"rtKs compassion and lenienc to red"ce the IB+ recommended three months
s"spension to either fne or admonition 'ith the &ollo'ing proLered gro"ndsJ that he is
relativel ne' in the pro&ession having %een admitted to the +hilippine Bar on April 26# 2==6 at
the age o& 5? 'hen the complained cond"ct 'as committed on A"g"st 2==2 that he is o&
h"m%le %eginnings and his s"spension 'ill deprive his &amil o& its onl so"rce o& livelihood he%eing the sole %read 'inner in the &amil that he has &"ll reali@ed his mista$e and the gravit
o& his oLense &or 'hich he is &"ll repentant that he has severed his attorne)client
relationship 'ith the emploees o& (acma# +hils.# Inc. % inhi%iting himsel& and 'ithdra'ing his
appearance as co"nsel in the la%or case against (acma# +hils.# Inc. and that he pledges not to
commit the same mista$e and to hence&orth strictl adhere to the pro&essional standards set
&orth % the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit.
(he Co"rt reiterates that an attorne o'es loalt to his client not onl in the case in 'hich he
has represented him %"t also a&ter the relation o& attorne and client has terminated as it is
not good practice to permit him a&ter'ards to de&end in another case other person against his
&ormer client "nder the prete-t that the case is distinct &rom# and independent o& the &ormer
case. 5 It %ehooves respondent not onl to $eep inviolate the clientKs confdence# %"t also to
avoid the appearance o& treacher and do"%le dealing &or onl then can litigants %e
enco"raged to entr"st their secrets to their attornes 'hich is o& paramo"nt importance in theadministration o& "stice. 6
(he relation o& attorne and client is one o& confdence and tr"st in
the highest degree.
A la'er o'es fdelit to the ca"se o& his client and he o"ght to %e
mind&"l o& the tr"st and confdence reposed in him. 8
An attorne not onl %ecomes &amiliar
'ith all the &acts connected 'ith his clientKs ca"se# %"t also learns &rom his client the 'ea$ and
strong points o& the case. No opport"nit m"st %e given attornes to ta$e advantage o& the
secrets o& clients o%tained 'hile the confdential relation o& attorne and client e-ists.
Other'ise# the legal pro&ession 'ill s"Ler % the loss o& the confdence o& the people.
RespondentKs plea &or lenienc cannot %e granted. e note that respondent is ne' in the
pro&ession as he 'as "st admitted to the +hilippine Bar on April 26# 2==6# 'hen the %reach o&
his oath o& o,ce occ"rred more than a ear a&ter. aving "st h"rdled the %ar e-aminations
'hich incl"ded an e-amination in legal ethics# s"rel the precepts o& the Code o& +ro&essional
Responsi%ilit to $eep inviolate the clientKs tr"st and confdence even a&ter the attorne)client
relation is terminated 10
m"st have %een still &resh in his mind. A la'er starting to esta%lish
his stat"re in the legal pro&ession m"st start right and d"ti&"ll a%ide % the norms o& cond"ct
o& the pro&ession. (his 'ill inel"cta%l redo"nd to his %eneft and to the "pli&tment o& the legal
pro&ession as 'ell.
ACCORDIN;*# respondent is here% SS+ENDED &rom the practice o& la' &or three months.
*et this resol"tion %e attached to respondentKs record in the O,ce o& the Bar Confdant and
copies thereo& &"rnished to all co"rts and to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines.
Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.
(IRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5105. A44 12, 1]
FERNANDO SALON7A, complainant, vs. ATTY. ISIDRO T. ILDA+A, respondent .
D E C I S I O N
VITU7, J.!
In an a,davit)complaint# dated >= March 2==?# Fernando Salonga# +resident o& Si$ap at (iaga Ala%ang Vendors Association# Inc. /:S(AVA<0# o& M"ntinl"pa Cit# charged Att. Isidro (.
ilda'a 'ith gross miscond"ct andHor deceit. Complainant averred that respondent la'er
'as a retained co"nsel o& S(AVA &or a n"m%er o& ears and# in Decem%er 2==8# represented
the association in Civil Cases No. >56?# No. >528 and No. >52?# &or eectment against#
respectivel # *inda Del Rosario# Angelita Man"el and Francisco Vega# all stallholders at the
Ala%ang mar$et# %e&ore the M"nicipal (rial Co"rt o& M"ntinl"pa. (he de&endants deposited the
accr"ed rentals 'ith the co"rt. On 25 Novem%er 2==5# respondent la'er fled a motion to
'ithdra' the deposit th"sJ
:!OIN( MO(ION (O I(DRA DE+OSI(
:Co"nsel &or complainant# "nto this onora%le Co"rt# most respect&"ll mani&estJ
:2. (hat# de&endants)appellants *inda del Rosario# Angelita Man"el and Francisco
Vega made their deposit o& accr"ed rentals on their stalls "p to Octo%er 27#
2==5# as &ollo'sJ
a. *inda del Rosario )) +>5#556.?6
%. Angelita Man"el )) 5?#58?.?6
c. Francisco Vega )) 88#???.?6
(otal )) +265#758.6
:>. (hat# plaintiL is entitled to s"ch deposits made % the appellants in order to
pa its o%ligation 'ith the cooperative 'hich granted the concession to the
transient area &or the plaintiL to operate
:8. (hat# co"nsel &or the appellants register no o%ection to s"ch 'ithdra'al as
sho'n % his con&ormit to the herein motion.
:here&ore# it is praed o& this onora%le Co"rt that plaintiL %e a"thori@ed to 'ithdra' the
corresponding amo"nts deposited % the de&endants in the a%ove)entitled cases.
:RES+EC(F** SBMI((ED.
:Novem%er 25# 2==5.
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 4/20
:MAA(I &or M"ntinl"pa.
:I*DAA P ;OMEQ
855 ;en. *"c%an St.# cor. So"th
S"perhigh'a# Ma$ati# Metro Manila
BJ
:/Sgd.0 ISIDRO (. I*DAA
+(R NO. =5>? H 2)>2)=5 H M"ntinl"pa
IB+ NO. 8599>9 H 7)6?)=5 H Ma$ati
ith M Con&ormitJ
/Sgd.0 Att. +A(RICIO *. BONCAAO# !R.
>nd Flr. Cattlea Commercial
National Road# Ala%ang<123
Respondent la'er iss"ed a receipt# dated 6= Decem%er 2==5# that ac$no'ledged his having
received the 'ithdra'n deposit o& +265#758.6. Complainant alleged that S(AVA 'as not
in&ormed o& the fling o& the motion nor did it a"thori@e Att. ilda'a to 'ithdra' the
amo"nt. Despite repeated demands# respondent la'er re&"sed to t"rn over the 'ithdra'n
s"m to S(AVA. (o ma$e matters even 'orse# added the compla inant# Att. ilda'a appeared
as co"nsel &or il"sang Baan ng mga Magtitinda sa +amilihang Baan ng M"ntinl"pa
/:BMB+M<0# an opponent o& S(AVA in Civil Case No. =7)2=># &or In"nction 'ith rgent +raer
&or Restraining Order# %e&ore Branch >9? o& the Regional (rial Co"rt o& M"ntinl"pa. Event"all#
the R(C# acting on a motion to disG"ali& respondent in said case# directed# in its order o& >?
Decem%er 2==7# the latter :to 'ithdra' &rom the case and avoid committing an "nethical
cond"ct.<1>3
In his ans'er to the complaint# Att. ilda'a co"ntered that complainant 'as &"ll
a'are o& the 'ithdra'al o& the rental in arrears deposited % the de&endants in the eectment
cases and that complainant# on several occasions# even accompanied him in &ollo'ing "p the
release o& the mone. e said he did not t"rn over the amo"nt 'ithdra'n to complainant
since Salonga 'as then on leave instead he handed over# on 26 Decem%er 2==5# the s"m to
Dolores !avinar# the treas"rer o& the association# 'ho iss"ed the corresponding receipt
there&or.
In his repl# Salonga disclaimed the s"pposed t"rn)over o& the mone to !avinar and the
allegation that he 'as on leave o& a%sence.
(his Co"rt re&erred the case to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines /:IB+<0 &or
investigation# report and recommendation.
In a resol"tion# dated 28 March 2==# the Commission on Bar Discipline# thro"gh
Commissioner Renato ;. C"nanan# &o"nd respondent g"ilt o& violation o& Canons 2? and >2 o&
the code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit and recommended that he %e s"spended &or one ear
&rom the practice o& la'. On >7 April 2==# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors# in its Resol"tion NO.
III)=)9># resolved to adopt and approve the recommendation o& the Investigating
Commissioner.
Soon a&ter receiving a cop o& the a%ove)n"m%ered resol"tion# respondent reverted to
IB+ see$ing a reconsideration o& its resol"tion onl to %e there"pon in&ormed that the case had
alread %een &or'arded to this Co"rt. Respondent s"%mitted to the Co"rt a memorand"m#
dated 67 A"g"st 2==# asseverating that the fndings o& the Investigating Commissioner 'ere
contrar to the evidence on record. e cited the resol"tion o& the S(AVA Board o& (r"stees#
dated 86 Octo%er 2==5# that readJ
:A(I(IAN N; +*ON;
N;
BOARD OF (RS(EES
N;
SIA+ A( (IA;A A*ABAN; VENDORS
ASSOCIA(ION# INC.
;inanap noong i$a)86 ng O$t"%re# 2==5 sa
(anggapan nito sa Ala%ang
Mga D"maloJ
+resident ) Fernando Salonga
E-ec"tive Vice)+res. ) (irso Sapar
V+ Internal ) Domingo Silava
V+ Sec"rit ) *eonardo ;"mapos
A"ditor ) ndo Cipriano
indi D"maloJ
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 5/20
V+ E-ternal ) Aser Arevalo
(reas"rer ) Dolores !avinar
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
:nang tinala$a sa pagp"p"long and $aa"san ng samahan at mga dapat t"pdin ng mga
$asapi %ilang $anilang t"ng$"lin sa samahan at sa l"gar na $anilang pinagtitindahan. Ang
$alinisan a pinagt"t""nan ng pansin.
:Bagama4t Ton)leave4 ang pang"lo natin# sa $ahalagahan ng pinag""sapan sia a narito sa
pagp"p"long.
:(inala$a ang hindi pag%a%aad ng Mar$et Fee at gamit electrical ng 22 dating miem%ro ng
S(AVA na t"'irang nag%a%aad ngaon sa $ooperati%a. Dahil dito a na'a'alan ng +576.66
hanggang +766.66 ang samahan sang)aon sa taa ng pang"lo.
:Dahil dito# %inigan ng $arapatan ang a%ogado ng samahan na isaaos ang dapat na
ha$%anging legal "pang mali$om ang salapi para sa S(AVA "pang ma$at"gon ito sa %aarin sa
BMBM+ at sa i%a pang pag$a$agast"san sa hinaharap na o$ason.
:Maroong pag)""sap "pang 'a$asan ang "sapin na idin"log ng S(AVA la%an sa ooperati%asapag$at sa di'a ng magandang pag$a$a"na'aan at ma%"ting samahan# nais ng ipag$aloo%
ng ooperati%a ang hinihingi ng S(AVA na lagan ng hangganan ang l"gar na ang mga
miem%ro ng S(AVA ang sia lamang magtitinda sa halagang itata$da ng %a'a4t panig.
:Dito t"mindig si Ester Dalde at ipina%atid sa $ap"l"ngan na sia a $ina"sap ng ;en.
Manager ng ooperati%a at tinatanong $"ng maari da' a h"'ag ng paalisin ang la%ing)isang
/220 t"mi'alag sa S(AVA.
:(inala$a ng pam"n"an ang %aga na ito at ang lahat a nag$a$aisa sa $anilang
paninindigan na dapat lamang palaasin ang lahat ng ta$sil at ana ng samahan "pang
mai'asan ang hindi pag$a$a"na'aan at t"lo maging aral na din sa i%a pa.
:Isin"nod na tinala$a ang mga T%alim%ing4 o nagdadala'ang m"$ha at inatasan na %"m"o ng
$ommitte t"ng$ol dito "pang ma%atid $"ng sino)sino ang mga ito at malapatan ng $a"$"lang
l"nas.
:Sa ano mang Compromise Agreement na gaga'in# hindi dapat p"maag na manatili pa ang
mga ta$sil sa S(AVA at ang $ooperati%a ang siang mag%i%iga sa $anila ng l"gar sa alin mang
parte ng paleng$e ng"nit hindi sa (ransient Area.
:Ang pagp"p"long a itinindig sa ganap na i$a)>J66 ng hapon.
/Sgd.0 /Sgd.0
Fernando Salonga (irso Sapar
+resident E-ec"tive Vice)+resident
/Sgd.0 /Sgd.0
Domingo Silava *eonardo ;"mapos
V+ Internal V+ Sec"rit
/Sgd.0
ndo Cipriano
A"ditor<183
Respondent li$e'ise so"ght to ma$e the clarifcation that his services as co"nsel o& S(AVA
'ere alread terminated in Fe%r"ar 2==7# long %e&ore he appeared as co"nsel &or BMB+M in
Decem%er 2==7.
A&ter a close revie' o& the records# the Co"rt is inclined to partiall grant the motion &or
reconsideration s"%mitted % respondent.
(he %asis o& the Investigating Commissioner &or fnding respondent la'er to have
violated Canon 2?153 'as the s"pposed admission o& Att. ilda'a that he 'ithdre' the amo"nt
o& +265#758.6 &or S(AVA. (his &act# ho'ever# 'as never denied % Att. ilda'a. It 'o"ld
appear that the real &oc"s sho"ld have %een then on the iss"e o& 'hether or not the
'ithdra'al o& the deposit % respondent had the client4s a"thorit. Apparentl# he did have
that a"thorit "nder the resol"tion# dated 86 Octo%er 2==5# o& the Board o& (r"stees o&
S(AVA. (he resol"tion# in part 'as to the &ollo'ing eLectJ
Da9$( %$o, $)$ya) ) :a&a;aa) a) aoa%o ) a<a9a) )a $aayo a) %a;a
)a 9a:a)$) (#a( 4;a) <a($:o< a) a(a;$ ;a&a a STAVA 4;a) <a:a4o) $o
a aya&$) a =3M3M a a $a ;a) ;a:a:aa4a) a 9$)a9a&a; )a o:ayo).>173
One o& the signatories o& the resol"tion 'as complainant Fernando Salonga
himsel&. Att. ilda'a did not $eep the mone %"t t"rned it over on 26 Decem%er 2==5# or "stone da a&ter receiving it /on 6= Decem%er 2==50# to Dolores !avinar# the STAVA &#a4&#&#
'ho iss"ed a corresponding receipt there&or. hat the treas"rer or S(AVA might have done
therea&ter 'ith the &"nds 'as no concern o& respondent co"nsel.
(he Co"rt agrees 'ith the Investigating Commissioner# ho'ever# that respondent la'er
has transgressed Canon >2 'hich reG"ires a la'er to preserve the confdences and secrets o&
his client even a&ter the attorne)client relation ceases# a mandate that he has placed in
possi%le eopard % agreeing to appear as co"nsel &or a part his client has previo"sl
contended 'ith in a case similarl involving said parties.
+EREFORE# the Co"rt ABSO*VES Att. Isidro (. ilda'a &rom the charge o& having
violated his o%ligation to hold in tr"st the &"nds o& his client %"t RE+RIMANDS him &or having
placed at ris$ his o%ligation o& preserving the confdentialit relationship 'ith a previo"s client#
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 6/20
'ith a 'arning that a repetition o& the same or similar cond"ct in the &"t"re 'ill %e dealt 'ith
most severel.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairan!, Pangani"an, Purisia, and #onzaga-Re$es, JJ., conc"r.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 5280. Ma&*9 -0, 200/]
+ILLIAM S. UY, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. 7ON?ALES, respondent .
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA@MARTINE?, J.!
illiam S. fled %e&ore this Co"rt an administrative case against Att. Fermin *.
;on@ales &or violation o& the confdentialit o& their la'er)client relationship. (he complainantallegesJ
Sometime in April 2===# he engaged the services o& respondent la'er to prepare and
fle a petition &or the iss"ance o& a ne' certifcate o& title. A&ter confding 'ith respondent the
circ"mstances s"rro"nding the lost title and disc"ssing the &ees and costs# respondent
prepared# fnali@ed and s"%mitted to him a petition to %e fled %e&ore the Regional (rial Co"rt o&
(a"g# +angasinan. hen the petition 'as a%o"t to %e fled# respondent 'ent to his
/complainant4s0 o,ce at Virra Mall# ;reenhills and demanded a certain amo"nt &rom him other
than 'hat the had previo"sl agreed "pon. Respondent le&t his o,ce a&ter reasoning 'ith
him. E-pecting that said petition 'o"ld %e fled# he 'as shoc$ed to fnd o"t later that instead
o& fling the petition &or the iss"ance o& a ne' certifcate o& title# respondent fled a letter)
complaint dated !"l >?# 2=== against him 'ith the O,ce o& the +rovincial +rosec"tor o& (a"g#
+angasinan &or :Falsifcation o& +"%lic Doc"ments.<123 (he letter)complaint contained &acts and
circ"mstances pertaining to the trans&er certifcate o& title that 'as the s"%ect matter o& the
petition 'hich respondent 'as s"pposed to have fled. +ortions o& said letter)complaint readJ
(he "ndersigned complainant acc"ses I**IAM S. # o& legal age# Filipino# married and a
resident o& 28>)A ;ilmore Street corner =th Street# Ne' Manila# U"e@on Cit# Michael Angelo (.
# CRIS(INA EAR* (. # minors and residents o& the a&oresaid address# *"viminda ;.
(omagos# o& legal age# married# Filipino and a resident o& Carma East# Rosales# +angasinan#
and F. Madaag# 'ith o,ce address at A2># >HF Vira Mall Shopping Comple-# ;reenhills# San
!"an# Metro Manila# &or ES(AFA (R FA*SIFICA(ION OF +B*IC DOCMEN(S# committed as
&ollo'sJ
(hat on March 27# 2==?# illiam S. acG"ired % p"rchase a parcel o& land consisting o&
5.662 ha. &or the amo"nt o& +266#666.66# +hilippine C"rrenc# sit"ated at Brg. ;on@ales#
mingan# +angasinan# &rom FERMIN C. ;ONQA*ES# as evidenced % a Deed o& Sale e-ec"ted
% the latter in &avor o& the &ormer that in the said date# illiam S. received the (rans&er
Certifcate o& (itle No. ()882>># covering the said land
(hat instead o& registering said Deed o& Sale and (rans&er Certifcate o& (itle /(C(0 No. ()882>>#
in the Register o& Deeds &or the p"rpose o& trans&erring the same in his name# illiam S.
e-ec"ted a Deed o& Vol"ntar *and (rans&er o& the a&oresaid land in &avor o& his children#
namel# Michael Angelo (. and Cristina Earl (. # 'herein illiam S. made it appear
that his said children are o& legal age# and residents o& Brg. ;on@ales# mingan# +angasinan#
'hen in &act and in tr"th# the are minors and residents o& Metro Manila# to G"ali& them as
&armersH%enefciaries# th"s placing the said propert 'ithin the coverage o& the *and Re&orm
+rogram
(hat the a%ove)named acc"sed# conspiring together and helping one another proc"red the&alsifed doc"ments 'hich the "sed as s"pporting papers so that the can sec"re &rom the
O,ce o& the Register o& Deeds o& (a"g# +angasinan# (C( No. ()72?7 /Certifcate o& *and
O'nership A'ard No. 665 8>=860 in &avor o& his a%ove)named children. Some o& these
Falsifed doc"ments are p"rported A,davit o& SellerH(rans&eror and A,davit o& Non)(enanc#
%oth dated A"g"st >6# 2==?# 'itho"t the signat"re o& a,ant# Fermin C. ;on@ales# and that on
that said date# Fermin C. ;on@ales 'as alread dead
(hat on Decem%er 29# 2==# illiam S. 'ith deceit and evident intent to de&ra"d
"ndersigned# still accepted the amo"nt o& +856#666.66# &rom Att. Fermin *.
;on@ales# +866#666.66# in +NB Chec$ No. 6666?6?# and +56#666.66# in cash# as &"ll pament
o& the redemption o& (C( No. 882>>$no'ing &"ll 'ell that at that time the said (C( cannot
%e redeemed anmore %eca"se the same 'as alread trans&erred in the name o& his children
(hat illiam S. has appropriated the amo"nt covered % the a&oresaid chec$# as evidenced% the said chec$ 'hich 'as encashed % him
(hat inspite o& repeated demands# %oth oral and in 'riting# illiam S. re&"sed and contin"e
to re&"se to deliver to him a (C( in the name o& the "ndersigned or to ret"rn and repa the
said +856#666.66# to the damage and pre"dice o& the "ndersigned.1>3
ith the e-ec"tion o& the letter)complaint# respondent violated his oath as a la'er and
grossl disregarded his d"t to preserve the secrets o& his client. Respondent
"nceremonio"sl t"rned against him "st %eca"se he re&"sed to grant respondent4s reG"est &or
additional compensation. Respondent4s act tarnished his rep"tation and social standing.183
In compliance 'ith this Co"rt4s Resol"tion dated !"l 82# >666#153 respondent fled his
Comment narrating his version# as &ollo'sJ
On Decem%er 29# 2==# he oLered to redeem &rom complainant a 5.= hectare)propert
sit"ated in Brg. ;on@ales# mingan# +angasinan covered % (C( No. ()882>> 'hich the latter
acG"ired % p"rchase &rom his /respondent4s0 son# the late Fermin C. ;on@ales# !r.. On the
same date# he paid complainant +856#666.66 and demanded the deliver o& (C( No. ()882>>
as 'ell as the e-ec"tion o& the Deed o& Redemption. pon reG"est# he gave complainant
additional time to locate said title or "ntil a&ter Christmas to deliver the same and e-ec"te the
Deed o& Redemption. A&ter the said period# he 'ent to complainant4s o,ce and demanded the
deliver o& the title and the e-ec"tion o& the Deed o& Redemption. Instead# complainant gave
him photocopies o& (C( No. ()882>> and (C( No. ()72?7. Complainant e-plained that he had
alread trans&erred the title o& the propert# covered % (C( No.()72?7 to his children Michael
and Cristina and that (C( No. ()72?7 'as misplaced and cannot %e located despite eLorts
to locate it. anting to protect his interest over the propert co"pled 'ith his desire to get
hold o& (C( No. ()72?7 the earliest possi%le time# he oLered his assistance %ro "ono to prepare
a petition &or lost title provided that all necessar e-penses incident thereto incl"ding
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 7/20
e-penses &or transportation and others# estimated at +>6#666.66# 'ill %e sho"ldered %
complainant. (o these# complainant agreed.
On April =# 2===# he s"%mitted to complainant a dra&t o& the petition &or the lost title
read &or signing and notari@ation. On April 25# 2===# he 'ent to complainant4s o,ce
in&orming him that the petition is read &or fling and needs &"nds &or e-penses. Complainant
'ho 'as 'ith a client as$ed him to 'ait at the anteroom 'here he 'aited &or almost t'o ho"rs
"ntil he &o"nd o"t that complainant had alread le&t 'itho"t leaving an instr"ctions nor &"nds
&or the fling o& the petition. Complainant4s cond"ct in&"riated him 'hich prompted him to give
a hand'ritten letter telling complainant that he is 'ithdra'ing the petition he prepared andthat complainant sho"ld get another la'er to fle the petition.
Respondent maintains that the la'er)client relationship %et'een him and complainant
'as terminated 'hen he gave the hand'ritten letter to complainant that there 'as no longer
an pro&essional relationship %et'een the t'o o& them 'hen he fled the letter)complaint &or
&alsifcation o& p"%lic doc"ment that the &acts and allegations contained in the letter)
complaint &or &alsifcation 'ere c"lled &rom p"%lic doc"ments proc"red &rom the O,ce o& the
Register o& Deeds in (a"g# +angasinan.173
In a Resol"tion dated Octo%er 2# >666# the Co"rt re&erred the case to the Integrated
Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or investigation# report and recommendation.1?3
Commissioner Re%ecca Villan"eva)Maala ordered %oth parties to appear on April >#
>668 %e&ore the IB+.193 On said date# complainant did not appear despite d"e notice. (here 'asno sho'ing that respondent received the notice &or that da4s hearing and so the hearing 'as
reset to Ma ># >668.13
On April >=# >668# Commissioner Villan"eva)Maala received a letter &rom one Att.
A"g"sto M. Macam dated April >5# >668# stating that his client# illiam S. # had lost interest
in p"rs"ing the complaint he fled against Att. ;on@ales and reG"esting that the case against
Att. ;on@ales %e dismissed.1=3
On !"ne ># >668# Commissioner Villan"eva)Maala s"%mitted her report and
recommendation# portions o& 'hich read as &ollo'sJ
(he &acts and evidence presented sho' that 'hen respondent agreed to handle the fling o&
the Verifed +etition &or the loss o& (C( No. ()72?7# complainant had confded to respondentthe &act o& the loss and the circ"mstances attendant thereto. hen respondent fled the
*etter)Complaint to the O,ce o& the Special +rosec"tor in (a"g# +angasinan# he violated
Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit 'hich e-pressl provides that :A la'er
shall preserve the confdences and secrets o& his client even a&ter the attorne)client relation is
terminated.< Respondent cannot arg"e that there 'as no la'er)client relationship %et'een
them 'hen he fled the *etter)Complaint on >? !"l 2=== considering that as earl as 25 April
2===# or three /80 months a&ter# respondent had alread terminated complainant4s perceived
la'er)client relationship %et'een them. (he d"t to maintain inviolate the client4s
confdences and secrets is not temporar %"t permanent. It is in eLect perpet"al &or :it
o"tlasts the la'er4s emploment< /Canon 89# Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit0 'hich
means even a&ter the relationship has %een terminated# the d"t to preserve the client4s
confdences and secrets remains eLective. *i$e'ise R"le >2.6># Canon >2 o& the R"les o&
+ro&essional Responsi%ilit provides that :A la'er shall not# o 9# %$a%'a)a# o 9$
*($#)# "se in&ormation acG"ired in the co"rse o& emploment# nor shall he "se the same to his
o'n advantage or that o& a third person# "nless the client 'ith the &"ll $no'ledge o& the
circ"mstances consents thereto.<
On >= April >668# the Commission received a letter dated >5 April >668 &rom Att. A"g"sto M.
Macam# 'ho claims to represent complainant# illiam S. # alleging that complainant is no
longer interested in p"rs"ing this case and reG"ested that the same %e dismissed. (he
a&oresaid letter hardl deserves consideration as proceedings o& this nat"re cannot %e
:interru%ted "$ reason o& desistance, settleent, co%roise, restitution, 'ithdra'al o& the
charges, or &ailure o& the co%lainant to %rosecute the sae. /Section 7# R"le 28=)B# R"les o&
Co"rt0. Moreover# in Boliver vs. Sim%ol# 2? SCRA ?>8# the Co"rt r"led that :an$ %erson a$"ring to this Courts attention the isconduct o& an$ la'$er, and action 'ill usuall$ "e ta)en
regardless o& the interest or lac) o& interest o& the co%lainant, i& the &acts %roven so
'arrant.*
IN VIE OF (E FORE;OIN;# 'e fnd respondent Att. Fermin *. ;on@ales to have violated the
Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit and it is here% recommended that he %e SUSENDED &or
a period o& SIB 6 MONTS &rom receipt hereo&# &rom the practice o& his pro&ession as a
la'er and mem%er o& the Bar.1263
On !"ne >2# >668# the Board o& ;overnors o& the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines iss"ed
Resol"tion No. V)>668)8?7# th"sJ
RESO*VED to ADO+( and A++ROVE# as it is here% ADO+(ED and A++ROVED# the Report and
Recommendation o& the Investigating Commissioner o& the a%ove)entitled case# herein madepart o& this Resol"tionHDecision as Anne- :A< and fnding the recommendation &"ll s"pported
% the evidence on record and applica%le la's and r"les# and considering that respondent
violated R"le >2.6># Canon >2 o& the Canons o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit# Att. Fermin *.
;on@ales is here% SUSENDED &rom the practice o& la' &or si- /?0 months.1223
+reliminaril# 'e agree 'ith Commissioner Villan"eva)Maala that the mani&estation o&
complainant e-pressing his desire to dismiss the administrative complaint he fled against
respondent# has no pers"asive %earing in the present case.
Sec. 7# R"le 28=)B o& the R"les o& Co"rt states thatJ
.
No investigation shall %e interr"pted or terminated % reason o& the desistance# settlement#
compromise# restit"tion# 'ithdra'al o& the charges# or &ail"re o& the complainant to prosec"te
the same.
(his is %eca"seJ
A proceeding &or s"spension or dis%arment is not in an sense a civil action 'here the
complainant is a plaintiL and the respondent la'er is a de&endant. Disciplinar proceedings
involve no private interest and aLord no redress &or private grievance. (he are "nderta$en
and prosec"ted solel &or the p"%lic 'el&are. (he are "nderta$en &or the p"rpose o&
preserving co"rts o& "stice &rom the o,cial ministration o& persons "nft to practice in
them. (he attorne is called to ans'er to the co"rt &or his cond"ct as an o,cer o& the
co"rt. (he complainant or the person 'ho called the attention o& the co"rt to the attorneKs
alleged miscond"ct is in no sense a part# and has generall no interest in the o"tcome e-cept
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 8/20
as all good citi@ens ma have in the proper administration o& "stice. ence# i& the evidence on
record 'arrants# the respondent ma %e s"spended or dis%arred despite the desistance o&
complainant or his 'ithdra'al o& the charges.12>3
No' to the merits o& the complaint against the respondent.
+ractice o& la' em%races an activit# in or o"t o& co"rt# 'hich reG"ires the application
o& la'# as 'ell as legal principles# practice or proced"re and calls &or legal $no'ledge# training
and e-perience.1283 hile it is tr"e that a la'er ma %e dis%arred or s"spended &or an
miscond"ct# 'hether in his pro&essional or private capacit# 'hich sho's him to %e 'anting inmoral character# in honest# pro%it and good demeanor or "n'orth to contin"e as an o,cer
o& the co"rt#1253 complainant &ailed to prove an o& the circ"mstances en"merated a%ove that
'o"ld 'arrant the dis%arment or s"spension o& herein respondent.
Not'ithstanding respondent4s o'n perception on the matter# a scr"tin o& the records
reveals that the relationship %et'een complainant and respondent stemmed & rom a personal
transaction or dealings %et'een them rather than the practice o& la' %
respondent. Respondent dealt 'ith complainant onl %eca"se he redeemed a propert 'hich
complainant had earlier p"rchased &rom his /complainant4s0 son. It is not re&"ted that
respondent paid complainant +856#666.66 and gave him ample time to prod"ce its title and
e-ec"te the Deed o& Redemption. o'ever# despite the period given to him# complainant
&ailed to &"lfll his end o& the %argain %eca"se o& the alleged loss o& the title 'hich he had
admitted to respondent as having premat"rel trans&erred to his children# th"s prompting
respondent to oLer his assistance so as to sec"re the iss"ance o& a ne' title to the propert# inlie" o& the lost one# 'ith complainant ass"ming the e-penses there&or.
As a rule, an attorne$-client relationshi% is said to e+ist 'hen a la'$er voluntaril$
%erits or acuiesces 'ith the consultation o& a %erson, 'ho in res%ect to a "usiness or
trou"le o& an$ )ind, consults a la'$er 'ith a vie' o& o"taining %ro&essional advice or
assistance. t is not essential that the client should have e%lo$ed the attorne$ on an$
%revious occasion or that an$ retainer should have "een %aid, %roised or charged &or, neither
is it aterial that the attorne$ consulted did not a&ter'ard underta)e the case a"out 'hich
the consultation 'as had, &or as long as the advice and assistance o& the attorne$ is sought
and received, in atters %ertinent to his %ro&ession./01
Considering the attendant pec"liar circ"mstances# said r"le cannot appl to the present
case. Evidentl# the &acts alleged in the complaint &or :Esta&a (hro"gh Falsifcation o& +"%lic
Doc"ments< fled % respondent against complainant 'ere o%tained % respondent d"e to hispersonal dealings 'ith complainant. Respondent vol"nteered his service to hasten the
iss"ance o& the cer tifcate o& ti tle o & the land he has redeemed &rom
complainant. Respondent4s immediate o%ective 'as to sec"re the title o& the propert that
complainant had earlier %o"ght &rom his son. Clearl# there 'as no attorne)client relationship
%et'een respondent and complainant. (he preparation and the proposed fling o& the petition
'as onl incidental to their personal transaction.
Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit readsJ
Canon >2 A *AER SA** +RESERVE (E CONFIDENCE AND SECRE(S OF IS C*IEN( EVEN
AF(ER (E A((ORNE)C*IEN( RE*A(ION IS (ERMINA(ED.
R"le >2.62 A la'er shall not reveal the confdences or secrets o& his client e-ceptJ
a0 hen a"thori@ed % the client a&ter acG"ainting him o& the conseG"ences o& the
disclos"re
%0 hen reG"ired % la'
c0 hen necessar to collect his &ees or to de&end himsel&# his emploees or associates
or % "dicial action.
(he alleged :secrets< o& complainant 'ere not specifed % him in his a,davit)
complaint. hatever &acts alleged % respondent against complainant 'ere not o%tained %
respondent in his pro&essional capacit %"t as a redemptioner o& a propert originall o'ned
% his deceased son and there&ore# 'hen respondent fled the complaint &or esta&a against
herein complainant# 'hich necessaril involved alleging &acts that 'o"ld constit"te esta&a#
respondent 'as not# in an 'a# violating Canon >2. (here is no 'a 'e can eG"ate the fling
o& the a,davit)complaint against herein complainant to a miscond"ct that is 'anting in moral
character# in honest# pro%it and good demeanor or that renders him "n'orth to contin"e as
an o,cer o& the co"rt. (o hold other'ise 'o"ld %e precl"ding an la'er &rom instit"ting a
case against anone to protect his personal or proprietar interests.
+EREFORE# Resol"tion No. V)>668)8?7 dated !"ne >2# >668 o& the Integrated Bar o&
the +hilippines is REVERSED and SE( ASIDE and the administrative case fled against Att.
Fermin *. ;on@ales# doc$eted as A.C. No. 7>6# is DISMISSED &or lac$ o& merit.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairan!, 2uisu"ing, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., conc"r.
FIRST DIVISION
RE3ECCA J. ALM, A.C. No. 82/2 Complainant#
+resentJ
+NO# C.J.# Chairperson# CAR+IO#
) vers"s ) CORONA#
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 9/20
*EONARDO)DE CAS(RO# andBERSAMIN# JJ.
ATTY. FELIE ILEDAN, JR., +rom"lgatedJRespondent. O*o#& 2, 200
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
D E C I S I O N
CARIO, J.! T9# Ca#
(he case %e&ore the Co"rt is a dis%arment proceeding fled % Re%ecca !. +alm
/complainant0 against Att. Felipe Iledan# !r. /respondent0 &or revealing in&ormation o%tained inthe co"rse o& an attorne)client relationship and &or representing an interest 'hich conWicted'ith that o& his &ormer client# Comtech orld'ide Sol"tions +hilippines# Inc. /Comtech0.
T9# A)#*#%#) Fa*
Complainant is the +resident o& Comtech# a corporation engaged in the %"siness o& comp"ter so&t'are development. From Fe%r"ar >668 to Novem%er >668# respondent servedas Comtech4s retained corporate co"nsel &or the amo"nt o& +?#666 per month as retainer&ee. From Septem%er to Octo%er >668# complainant personall met 'ith respondent to revie'corporate matters# incl"ding potential amendments to the corporate %)la's. In a meetingheld on 2 Octo%er >668# respondent s"ggested that Comtech amend its corporate %)la's to
allo' participation d"ring %oard meetings# thro"gh telecon&erence# o& mem%ers o& the Board o& Directors 'ho 'ere o"tside the +hilippines.
+rior to the completion o& the amendments o& the corporate %)la's# complainant%ecame "ncom&orta%le 'ith the close relationship %et'een respondent and Elda Soledad/Soledad0# a &ormer o,cer and director o& Comtech# 'ho resigned and 'ho 'as s"spected o& releasing "na"thori@ed dis%"rsements o& corporate &"nds. (h"s# Comtech decided toterminate its retainer agreement 'ith respondent eLective Novem%er >668.
In a stoc$holders4 meeting held on 26 !an"ar >665# respondent attended as pro- ∨ar arrison /arrison0. Steven C. +alm /Steven0 and Deanna *. +alm# mem%ers o& the Boardo& Directors# 'ere present thro"gh telecon&erence. hen the meeting 'as called to order#respondent o%ected to the meeting &or lac$ o& G"or"m. Respondent asserted that Steven andDeanna +alm co"ld not participate in the meeting %eca"se the corporate %)la's had not et%een amended to allo' telecon&erencing.
On >5 March >665# Comtech4s ne' co"nsel sent a demand letter to Soledad to ret"rn oracco"nt &or the amo"nt o& +=6#5??.26 representing her "na"thori@ed dis%"rsements 'hen she'as the Corporate (reas"rer o& Comtech. On >> April >665# Comtech received Soledad4s repl#signed % respondent. In !"l >665# d"e to Soledad4s &ail"re to compl 'ith ComtechKs 'rittendemands# Comtech fled a complaint &or Esta&a against Soledad %e&ore the Ma$ati +rosec"tor4sO,ce. In the proceedings %e&ore the Cit +rosec"tion O,ce o& Ma$ati# respondent appearedas Soledad4s co"nsel.
On >? !an"ar >667# complainant fled a Complaint123 &or dis%arment against respondent%e&ore the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0.
In his Ans'er#1>3 respondent alleged that in !an"ar >66># Soledad cons"lted him onprocess and proced"re in acG"iring propert. In April >66># Soledad again cons"lted him a%o"tthe legal reG"irements o& p"tting "p a domestic corporation. In Fe%r"ar >668# Soledadengaged his services as cons"ltant &or Comtech. Respondent alleged that &rom Fe%r"ar toOcto%er >668# neither Soledad nor +alm cons"lted him on confdential or privileged matterconcerning the operations o& the corporation. Respondent &"rther alleged that he had noaccess to an record o& Comtech.
Respondent admitted that d"ring the months o& Septem%er and Octo%er >668#complainant met 'ith him regarding the proced"re in amending the corporate %)la's to allo'%oard mem%ers o"tside the +hilippines to participate in %oard meetings.
Respondent &"rther alleged that arrison# then Comtech +resident# appointed him aspro- d"ring the 26 !an"ar >665 meeting. Respondent alleged that arrison instr"cted himto o%serve the cond"ct o& the meeting. Respondent admitted that he o%ected to theparticipation o& Steven and Deanna +alm %eca"se the corporate %)la's had not et %eenproperl amended to allo' the participation o& %oard mem%ers % telecon&erencing.
Respondent alleged that there 'as no conWict o& interest 'hen he represented Soledadin the case &or Esta&a fled % Comtech. e alleged that Soledad 'as alread a client %e&orehe %ecame a cons"ltant &or Comtech. e alleged that the criminal case 'as not related to orconnected 'ith the limited proced"ral G"eries he handled 'ith Comtech.
T9# I3 R#;o& a)% R#*o<<#)%a$o)
In a Report and Recommendation dated > March >66?# 183 the IB+ Commission on BarDiscipline /IB+)CBD0 &o"nd respondent g"ilt o& violation o& Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit and o& representing interest in conWict 'ith that o& Comtech as his&ormer client.
(he IB+)CBD r"led that there 'as no do"%t that respondent 'as Comtech4s retainedco"nsel &rom Fe%r"ar >668 to Novem%er >668. (he IB+)CBD &o"nd that in the co"rse o& themeetings &or the intended amendments o& Comtech4s corporate %)la's# respondent o%tained$no'ledge a%o"t the intended amendment to allo' mem%ers o& the Board o& Directors 'ho'ere o"tside the +hilippines to participate in %oard meetings thro"gh telecon&erencing. (he
IB+)CBD noted that respondent $ne' that the corporate %)la's have not et %een amendedto allo' the telecon&erencing. ence# 'hen respondent# as representative o& arrison#o%ected to the participation o& Steven and Deanna +alm thro"gh telecon&erencing on thegro"nd that the corporate %)la's did not allo' the participation# he made "se o& a privilegedin&ormation he o%tained 'hile he 'as Comtech4s retained co"nsel.
(he IB+)CBD li$e'ise &o"nd that in representing Soledad in a case fled % Comtech#respondent represented an interest in conWict 'ith that o& a &ormer client. (he IB+)CBD r"ledthat the &act that respondent represented Soledad a&ter the termination o& his pro&essionalrelationship 'ith Comtech 'as not an e-c"se.
(he IB+)CBD recommended that respondent %e s"spended &rom the practice o& la' &orone ear# th"sJ
EREFORE# premises considered# it is most respect&"llrecommended that herein respondent %e &o"nd g"ilt o& the chargespre&erred against him and %e s"spended &rom the practice o& la' &or one/20 ear.153
In Resol"tion No. VII)>66?)78173 passed on 27 Decem%er >66?# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors adopted and approved the recommendation o& the Investigating Commissioner 'ithmodifcation % s"spending respondent &rom the practice o& la' &or t'o ears.
Respondent fled a motion &or reconsideration.1?3
In an "ndated Recommendation# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors First Division &o"nd that
respondent4s motion &or reconsideration did not raise an ne' iss"e and 'as "st a rehash o& his previo"s arg"ments. o'ever# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors First Division recommendedthat respondent %e s"spended &rom the practice o& la' &or onl one ear.
In Resol"tion No. VIII)>66)968 passed on 22 Decem%er >66# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors adopted and approved the recommendation o& the IB+ Board o& ;overnors FirstDivision. (he IB+ Board o& ;overnors denied respondent4s motion &or reconsideration %"tred"ced his s"spension &rom t'o ears to one ear.
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 10/20
(he IB+ Board o& ;overnors &or'arded the present case to this Co"rt as provided "nderSection 2>/%0# R"le 28=)B193 o& the R"les o& Co"rt.
T9# R4($) o 9$ Co4&
e cannot s"stain the fndings and recommendation o& the IB+.
Violation of the Condentiality of Lawyer-Client Relationship
Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit providesJ
Canon >2. A la'er shall preserve the *o)G%#)*# a)% #*&# o& his client even a&ter the attorne)client relationship isterminated. /Emphasis s"pplied0
e agree 'ith the IB+ that in the co"rse o& complainant4s cons"ltations# respondento%tained the in&ormation a%o"t the need to amend the corporate %)la's to allo' %oardmem%ers o"tside the +hilippines to participate in %oard meetings thro"ghtelecon&erencing. Respondent himsel& admitted this in his Ans'er.
o'ever# 'hat transpired on 26 !an"ar >665 'as not a %oard meeting %"t astoc$holders4 meeting. Respondent attended the meeting as pro- &or arrison. (he phsicalpresence o& a stoc$holder is not necessar in a stoc$holders4 meeting %eca"se a mem%er mavote % pro- "nless other'ise provided in the articles o& incorporation or %)la's. 13 ence#there 'as no need &or Steven and Deanna +alm to participate thro"gh telecon&erencing asthe co"ld "st have sent their pro-ies to the meeting.
In addition# altho"gh the in&ormation a%o"t the necessit to amend the corporate %)la's ma have %een given to respondent# it co"ld not %e considered a confdentialin&ormation. (he amendment# repeal or adoption o& ne' %)la's ma %e eLected % :the%oard o& directors or tr"stees# % a maorit vote thereo&# and the o'ners o& at least a maorito& the o"tstanding capital stoc$# or at least a maorit o& mem%ers o& a non)stoc$corporation.< 1=3 It means the stoc$holders are a'are o& the proposed amendments to the %)la's. hile the po'er ma %e delegated to the %oard o& directors or tr"stees# there is nothingin the records to sho' that a delegation 'as made in the present case. F"rther# 'henever anamendment or adoption o& ne' %)la's is made# copies o& the amendments or the ne' %)la's are fled 'ith the Sec"rities and E-change Commission /SEC0 and attached to the originalarticles o& incorporation and %)la's. 1263 T9# %o*4<#) a&# ;4($* &#*o&% a)% *o4(% )o# *o)$%#&#% *o)G%#)$a(.
It is settled that the mere relation o& attorne and client does not raise a pres"mption o& confdentialit.1223 (he client m"st intend the comm"nication to %e confdential.12>3 S$)*# 9#;&o;o#% a<#)%<#) <4 # a;;&o'#% y a (#a a <aHo&$y o 9# o*:9o(%#&,a)% *o;$# o 9# a<#)%#% y@(a <4 # G(#% $9 9# SEC, 9# $)o&<a$o)*o4(% )o 9a'# ##) $)#)%#% o # *o)G%#)$a(. (h"s# the disclos"re made %respondent d"ring the stoc$holders4 meeting co"ld not %e considered a violation o& his client4ssecrets and confdence 'ithin the contemplation o& Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essionalResponsi%ilit.
Representing Interest in Conict !ith the Interest of a "ormer Client
(he IB+ &o"nd respondent g"ilt o& representing an interest in conWict 'ith that o& a&ormer client# in violation o& R"le 27.68# Canon 27 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit'hich providesJ
R"le 27.68 ) A la'er shall not represent conWicting interest e-cept% 'ritten consent o& all concerned given a&ter a &"ll disclos"re o& the&acts.
e do not agree 'ith the IB+.
In 2uia"ao v. 3a"a#1283 the Co"rt en"merated vario"s tests to determine conWict o&
interests. One test o& inconsistenc o& interests is 'hether the la'er 'ill %e as$ed to "seagainst his &ormer client an confdential in&ormation acG"ired thro"gh their connection orprevio"s emploment.1253 (he Co"rt has r"led that 'hat a la'er o'es his &ormer client is tomaintain inviolate the client4s confdence or to re&rain &rom doing anthing 'hich 'illin"rio"sl aLect him in an matter in 'hich he previo"sl represented him. 1273
e fnd no conWict o& interest 'hen respondent represented Soledad in a case fled %
Comtech. (he case 'here respondent represents Soledad is an Esta&a case fled % Comtechagainst its &ormer o,cer. T9#&# a )o9$) $) 9# &#*o&% 9a o4(% 9o 9a
&#;o)%#) 4#% aa$) Co<#*9 a)y *o)G%#)$a( $)o&<a$o) a*4$&#% 9$(# 9#a $(( Co<#*9 &#a$)#% *o4)#(. F"rther# respondent made the representation a&terthe termination o& his retainer agreement 'ith Comtech. A la'er4s imm"ta%le d"t to a&ormer client does not cover transactions that occ"rred %eond the la'er4s emploment 'iththe client.12?3 (he intent o& the la' is to impose "pon the la'er the d"t to protect the client4sinterests onl on matters that he previo"sl handled &or the &ormer client and not &or mattersthat arose a&ter the la'er)client relationship has terminated.1293
+EREFORE# 'e DISMISS the complaint against Att. Felipe Iledan# !r. &or lac$ o&
merit.
SO ORDERED.
Rep"%lic o& the +hilippines
SUREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 5/- Ja)4a&y 22, 200
CLARITA J. SAMALA, Complainant#
vs.
ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA, Respondent.
R E S O * ( I O N
AUSTRIA@MARTINE?, J.:
Be&ore "s is a complaint2 dated Ma ># >662 fled % Clarita !. Samala /complainant0 against
Att. *"ciano D. Valencia /respondent0 &or Dis%arment on the &ollo'ing gro"ndsJ /a0 serving on
t'o separate occasions as co"nsel &or contending parties /%0 $no'ingl misleading the co"rt
% s"%mitting &alse doc"mentar evidence /c0 initiating n"mero"s cases in e-change &or
nonpament o& rental &ees and /d0 having a rep"tation o& %eing immoral % siring illegitimate
children.
A&ter respondent fled his Comment# the Co"rt# in its Resol"tion o& Octo%er >5# >662# re&erred
the case to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or investigation# report and
recommendation. >
(he investigation 'as cond"cted % Commissioner Demaree !es"s B. Raval. A&ter a series o&
hearings# the parties fled their respective memoranda 8 and the case 'as deemed s"%mitted
&or resol"tion.
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 11/20
Commissioner il&redo E.!.E. Rees prepared the Report and Recommendation 5 dated !an"ar
2># >66?. e &o"nd respondent g"ilt o& violating Canons 27 and >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional
Responsi%ilit and recommended the penalt o& s"spension &or si- months.
In a min"te Resol"tion 7 passed on Ma >?# >66?# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors adopted and
approved the report and recommendation o& Commissioner Rees %"t increased the penalt o&
s"spension &rom si- months to one ear.
e adopt the report o& the IB+ Board o& ;overnors e-cept as to the iss"e on immoralit and as
to the recommended penalt.
O) #&'$) a *o4)#( o& *o)#)%$) ;a&$#.
Records sho' that in Civil Case No. =7)267)M# fled in the Regional (rial Co"rt /R(C0# Branch
>9># Mari$ina Cit# entitled *eonora M. Aville v. Editha Valde@ &or nonpament o& rentals#
herein respondent# 'hile %eing the co"nsel &or de&endant Valde@# also acted as co"nsel &or the
tenants *agma# Valencia# B"stamante and Ba"ga ? % fling an E-planation and Compliance
%e&ore the R(C. 9
In Civil Case No. =)?65 fled in the Metropolitan (rial Co"rt /M(C0# Branch 97# Mari$ina Cit#
entitled Editha S. Valde@ and !oseph !. Al%a# !r. v. Salve B"stamante and her h"s%and &or
eectment# respondent represented Valde@ against B"stamante ) one o& the tenants in the
propert s"%ect o& the controvers. De&endants appealed to the R(C# Branch >9># Mari$inaCit doc$eted as SCA Case No. ==)852)M. In his decision dated Ma ># >666# +residing !"dge
Re"%en +. dela Cr"@ = 'arned respondent to re&rain &rom repeating the act o& %eing co"nsel o&
record o& %oth parties in Civil Case No. =7)267)M.
B"t in Civil Case No. >666)?79)M# fled in the R(C# Branch >98# Mari$ina Cit# entitled Editha
S. Valde@ v. !oseph !. Al%a# !r. and Register o& Deeds o& Mari$ina Cit# respondent# as co"nsel
&or Valde@# fled a Complaint &or Rescission o& Contract 'ith Damages and Cancellation o&
(rans&er Certifcate o& (itle No. >97766 against Al%a# respondentKs &ormer client in Civil Case
No. =)?65 and SCA Case No. ==)852)M.
Records &"rther reveal that at the hearing o& Novem%er 25# >668# respondent admitted that in
Civil Case No. =7)267)M# he 'as the la'er &or *agma /one o& the tenants0 %"t not &or
B"stamante and Ba"ga 26 al%eit he fled the E-planation and Compliance &or and in %ehal& o&
the tenants. 22
Respondent also admitted that he represented Valde@ in Civil Case No. =)?65and SCA Case No. ==)852)M against B"stamante and her h"s%and %"t denied %eing the
co"nsel &or Al%a altho"gh the case is entitled Valde@ a)% A(a v. B"stamante and her
h"s%and# %eca"se Valde@ told him to incl"de Al%a as the t'o 'ere the o'ners o& the
propert 2> and it 'as onl Valde@ 'ho signed the complaint &or eectment. 28 B"t# 'hile
claiming that respondent did not represent Al%a# respondent# ho'ever# avers that he alread
severed his representation &or Al%a 'hen the latter charged respondent 'ith esta&a. 25 (h"s#
the fling o& Civil Case No. >666)?79)M against Al%a.
R"le 27.68# Canon 27 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit provides that a la'er shall
not represent conWicting interests e-cept % 'ritten consent o& all concerned given a&ter a &"ll
disclos"re o& the &acts.
A la'er ma not# 'itho"t %eing g"ilt o& pro&essional miscond"ct# act as co"nsel &or a person
'hose interest conWicts 'ith that o& his present or &ormer client.27
e ma not also "nderta$e
to discharge conWicting d"ties an more than he ma represent antagonistic interests. (his
stern r"le is &o"nded on the principles o& p"%lic polic and good taste. 2? It springs &rom the
relation o& attorne and client 'hich is one o& tr"st and confdence. *a'ers are e-pected not
onl to $eep inviolate the clientKs confdence# %"t also to avoid the appearance o& treacher
and do"%le)dealing &or onl then can l itigants %e enco"raged to entr"st their secrets to their
la'ers# 'hich is o& paramo"nt importance in the administration o& "stice. 29
One o& the tests o& inconsistenc o& interests is 'hether the acceptance o& a ne' relation
'o"ld prevent the &"ll discharge o& the la'erKs d"t o& "ndivided fdelit and loalt to the
client or invite s"spicion o& "n&aith&"lness or do"%le)dealing in the per&ormance o& that d"t. 2
(he stern r"le against representation o& conWicting interests is &o"nded on principles o& p"%lic
polic and good taste. It springs &rom the attorneKs d"t to represent his client 'ith "ndivided
fdelit and to maintain inviolate the clientKs confdence as 'ell as &rom the in"nction
&or%idding the e-amination o& an attorne as to an o& the privileged comm"nications o& his
client. 2=
An attorne o'es loalt to his client not onl in the case in 'hich he has represented him %"t
also a&ter the relation o& attorne and client has terminated. >6 (he %are attorne)client
relationship 'ith a client precl"des an attorne &rom accepting pro&essional emploment &rom
the clientKs adversar either in the same case >2 or in a diLerent %"t related action. >> A la'er
is &or%idden &rom representing a s"%seG"ent client against a &ormer client 'hen the s"%ect
matter o& the present controvers is related# directl or indirectl# to the s"%ect matter o& the
previo"s litigation in 'hich he appeared &or the &ormer client.
>8
e held in Nom%rado v. ernande@ >5 that the termination o& the relation o& attorne and client
provides no "stifcation &or a la'er to represent an interest adverse to or in conWict 'ith that
o& the &ormer client. (he reason &or the r"le is that the clientKs confdence once reposed cannot
%e divested % the e-piration o& the pro&essional emploment. >7 ConseG"entl# a la'er
sho"ld not# even a&ter the severance o& the relation 'ith his client# do anthing 'hich 'ill
in"rio"sl aLect his &ormer client in an matter in 'hich he previo"sl represented him nor
sho"ld he disclose or "se an o& the clientKs confdences acG"ired in the previo"s relation. >?
In this case# respondentKs averment that his relationship 'ith Al%a has long %een severed %
the act o& the latter o& not t"rning over the proceeds collected in Civil Case No. =)?65# in
connivance 'ith the complainant# is "navailing. (ermination o& the attorne)client relationship
precl"des an attorne &rom representing a ne' client 'hose interest is adverse to his &ormer
client. Al%a ma not %e his original client %"t the &act that he fled a case entitled Valde@ a)%A(a v. B"stamante and her h"s%and# is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the
interests o& %oth Valde@ and Al%a in the said case. Respondent cannot "st claim that the
la'er)client relationship %et'een him and Al%a has long %een severed 'itho"t o%serving
Section >?# R"le 28 o& the R"les o& Co"rt 'herein the 'ritten consent o& his client is reG"ired.
In ;on@ales v. Ca%"cana# !r.# >9 citing the case o& U"iam%ao v. Bam%a# > 'e held thatJ
(he proscription against representation o& conWicting interests applies to a sit"ation 'here the
opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an "nrelated action. It is o& no
moment that the la'er 'o"ld not %e called "pon to contend &or one client that 'hich the
la'er has to oppose &or the other client# or that there 'o"ld %e no occasion to "se the
confdential in&ormation acG"ired &rom one to the disadvantage o& the other as the t'o actions
are 'holl "nrelated. It is eno"gh that the opposing parties in one case# one o& 'hom 'o"ld
lose the s"it# are present clients and the nat"re or conditions o& the la'erKs respective
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 12/20
retainers 'ith each o& them 'o"ld aLect the per&ormance o& the d"t o& "ndivided fdelit to
%oth clients. >=
Respondent is %o"nd to compl 'ith Canon >2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit 'hich
states that a la'er shall preserve the confdences and secrets o& his client even a&ter the
attorne)client relation is terminated.
(he reason &or the prohi%ition is &o"nd in the relation o& attorne and client# 'hich is one o&
tr"st and confdence o& the highest degree. A la'er %ecomes &amiliar 'ith all the &acts
connected 'ith his clientKs case. e learns &rom his client the 'ea$ points o& the action as 'ellas the strong ones. S"ch $no'ledge m"st %e considered sacred and g"arded 'ith care. 86
From the &oregoing# it is evident that respondentKs representation o& Valde@ and Al%a against
B"stamante and her h"s%and# in one case# and Valde@ against Al%a# in another case# is a clear
case o& conWict o& interests 'hich merits a corresponding sanction &rom this Co"rt. Respondent
ma have 'ithdra'n his representation in Civil Case No. =7)267)M "pon %eing 'arned % the
co"rt# 82 %"t the same 'ill not e-c"lpate him &rom the charge o& representing conWicting
interests in his representation in Civil Case No. >666)?79)M.
Respondent is reminded to %e more ca"tio"s in accepting pro&essional emploments# to re&rain
&rom all appearances and acts o& impropriet incl"ding circ"mstances indicating conWict o&
interests# and to %ehave at all times 'ith circ"mspection and dedication %eftting a mem%er o&
the Bar# especiall o%serving candor# &airness and loalt in all transactions 'ith his clients. 8>
O) :)o$)(y <$(#a%$) 9# *o4& y 4<$$) a(# %o*4<#)a&y #'$%#)*#.
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 66)9289 fled %e&ore M(C# Branch 97 &or eectment#
respondent s"%mitted (C( No. >986>6 as evidence o& Valde@Ks o'nership despite the &act that
a ne' (C( No. >97766 'as alread iss"ed in the name o& Al%a on Fe%r"ar ># 2==7.
Records reveal that respondent fled Civil Case No. 66)9289 on Novem%er >9# >666 and
presented (C( No. >986>6 as evidence o& Valde@Ks o'nership o& the s"%ect propert. 88 D"ring
the hearing %e&ore Commissioner Raval# respondent avers that 'hen the Ans'er 'as fled in
the said case# that 'as the time that he came to $no' that the title 'as alread in the name
o& Al%a so that 'hen the co"rt dismissed the complaint# he did not do anthing
anmore. 85 Respondent &"rther avers that Valde@ did not tell him the tr"th and things 'ere
revealed to him onl 'hen the case &or rescission 'as fled in >66>.
pon e-amination o& the record# it 'as noted that Civil Case No. >666)?79)M &or rescission o&
contract and cancellation o& (C( No. >97766 'as also fled on Novem%er >9# >666# 87 %e&ore
R(C# Branch >98# Mari$ina Cit# th"s %eling the averment o& respondent that he came to
$no' o& Al%aKs title onl in >66> 'hen the case &or rescission 'as fled. It 'as revealed d"ring
the hearing %e&ore Commissioner Raval that Civil Case Nos. 66)9289 and >666)?79)M 'ere
fled on the same date# altho"gh in diLerent co"rts and at diLerent times.
ence# respondent cannot &eign ignorance o& the &act that the title he s"%mitted 'as alread
cancelled in lie" o& a ne' title iss"ed in the name o& Al%a in 2==7 et# as proo& o& the latterKs
o'nership.
Respondent &ailed to compl 'ith Canon 26 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit 'hich
provides that a la'er shall not do an &alsehood# nor consent to the doing o& an in co"rt nor
shall he mislead# or allo' the Co"rt to %e mislead % an artifce. It matters not that the trial
co"rt 'as not misled % respondentKs s"%mission o& (C( No. >986>6 in the name o& Valde@# as
sho'n % its decision dated !an"ar # >66> 8? dismissing the complaint &or eectment. hat is
decisive in this case is respondentKs intent in tring to mislead the co"rt % presenting (C( No.
>986>6 despite the &act that said title 'as alread cancelled and a ne' one# (C( No. >97766#
'as alread iss"ed in the name o& Al%a.
In 4oung v. 3atuegas,89 'e held that a la'er m"st %e a disciple o& tr"th. e s'ore "pon his
admission to the Bar that he 'ill do no &alsehood nor consent to the doing o& an in co"rt
and he shall cond"ct himsel& as a la'er according to the %est o& his $no'ledge and
discretion 'ith all good fdelit as 'ell to the co"rts as to his clients. 8e sho"ld %ear in mind
that as an o,cer o& the co"rt his high vocation is to correctl in&orm the co"rt "pon the la'
and the &acts o& the case and to aid it in doing "stice and arriving at correct concl"sion. 8= (he
co"rts# on the other hand# are entitled to e-pect onl complete honest &rom la'ers
appearing and pleading %e&ore them. hile a la'er has the solemn d"t to de&end his clientKs
rights and is e-pected to displa the "tmost @eal in de&ense o& his clientKs ca"se# his cond"ct
m"st never %e at the e-pense o& tr"th.
A la'er is the servant o& the la' and %elongs to a pro&ession to 'hich societ has entr"sted
the administration o& la' and the dispensation o& "stice. 56 As s"ch# he sho"ld ma$e himsel&
more an e-emplar &or others to em"late.52
XOn initiating n"mero"s cases in e-change &or nonpament o& rental &ees.
Complainant alleges that respondent fled the &ollo'ing casesJ /a0 Civil Case No. >666)?79)M
at the R(C# Branch >9> /%0 Civil Case No. 66)9289 at the M(C# Branch 97 and /c0 I.S. Nos. 66)
558= and 62)68?2?> %oth entitled Valencia v. Samala &or esta&a and grave coercion#
respectivel# %e&ore the Mari$ina Cit +rosec"tor. Complainant claims that the t'o criminal
cases 'ere fled in retaliation &or the cases she fled against *agma doc$eted as I.S. No. 66)
586? &or esta&a and I.S. No. 66)582 against Alvin Valencia /son o& respondent0 &or trespass to
d'elling.
As c"lled &rom the records# Valde@ entered into a retainer agreement 'ith respondent. As
pament &or his services# he 'as allo'ed to occ"p the propert &or &ree and "tili@e the same
as his o,ce p"rs"ant to their retainer agreement. 5>
Respondent fled I.S. Nos. 66)558= 58 and 62)68?2?> 55 %oth entitled Valencia v. Samala &or
esta&a and grave coercion# respectivel# to protect his clientKs rights against complainant 'ho
fled I.S. No. 66)586? 57 &or esta&a against *agma# and I.S. No. 66)582 5? against Alvin
Valencia 59 &or trespass to d'elling.
e fnd the charge to %e 'itho"t s",cient %asis. (he act o& respondent o& fling the a&orecited
cases to protect the interest o& his client# on one hand# and his o'n interest# on the other#
cannot %e made the %asis o& an administrative charge "nless it can %e clearl sho'n that the
same 'as %eing done to a%"se "dicial processes to commit in"stice.
(he fling o& an administrative case against respondent &or protecting the interest o& his client
and his o'n right 'o"ld %e p"tting a %"rden on a practicing la'er 'ho is o%ligated to de&end
and prosec"te the right o& his client.
O) 9a'$) a &#;4a$o) o& #$) $<<o&a( y $&$) $((#$$<a# *9$(%&#).
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 13/20
e fnd respondent lia%le &or %eing immoral % siring illegitimate children.
D"ring the hearing# respondent admitted that he sired three children % (eresita *agma 'ho
are all over >6 ears o& age# 5 'hile his frst 'i&e 'as still alive. e also admitted that he has
eight children % his frst 'i&e# the o"ngest o& 'hom is over >6 ears o& age# and a&ter his 'i&e
died in 2==9# he married *agma in 2==. 5=Respondent &"rther admitted that *agma 'as
staing in one o& the apartments %eing claimed % complainant. o'ever# he does not
consider his aLair 'ith *agma as a relationship 76 and does not consider the latter as his
second &amil. 72 e reasoned that he 'as not staing 'ith *agma %eca"se he has t'o
ho"ses# one in M"ntinl"pa and another in Mari$ina. 7>
In this case# the admissions made % respondent are more than eno"gh to hold him lia%le on
the charge o& immoralit. D"ring the hearing# respondent did not sho' an remorse. e even
"stifed his transgression % saing that he does not have an relationship 'ith *agma and
despite the &act that he sired three children % the latter# he does not consider them as his
second &amil. It is noted that d"ring the hearing# respondent %oasts in telling the
commissioner that he has t'o ho"ses ) in M"ntinl"pa# 'here his frst 'i&e lived# and in
Mari$ina# 'here *agma lives. 78 It is o& no moment that respondent event"all married
*agma a&ter the death o& his frst 'i&e. (he &act still remains that respondent did not live "p to
the e-acting standard o& moralit and decor"m reG"ired o& the legal pro&ession.
nder Canon 2# R"le 2.62 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit# a la'er shall not engage
in "nla'&"l# dishonest# immoral or deceit&"l cond"ct. It ma %e di,c"lt to speci& the degree o&
moral delinG"enc that ma G"ali& an act as immoral# et# &or p"rposes o& disciplining ala'er# immoral cond"ct has %een defned as that cond"ct 'hich is 'ill&"l# Wagrant# or
shameless# and 'hich sho's a moral indiLerence to the opinion o& respecta%le mem%ers o&
the comm"nit. 75 (h"s# in several cases# the Co"rt did not hesitate to discipline a la'er &or
$eeping a mistress in defance o& the mores and sense o& moralit o& the comm"nit. 77 (hat
respondent s"%seG"entl married *agma in 2== a&ter the death o& his 'i&e and that this is
his frst in&raction as regards immoralit serve to mitigate his lia%ilit.
ACCORDIN;*# the Co"rt fnds respondent Att. *"ciano D. Valencia 7UILTY o& miscond"ct and
violation o& Canons >2# 26 and 2 o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit. e
is SUSENDED &rom the practice o& la' &or three /80 ears# eLective immediatel "pon
receipt o& herein Resol"tion.
*et copies o& this Resol"tion %e &"rnished all co"rts o& the land# the Integrated Bar o& the
+hilippines as 'ell as the O,ce o& the Bar Confdant &or their in&ormation and g"idance# andlet it %e entered in respondentKs personal records.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION RO7ELIO . VILLANUEVA, ADM. CASE NO. 5018 Co<;(a$)a),+resentJ
UISMBIN;# J., Chair%erson, ) vers"s )CAR+IO# CAR+IO MORA*ES#
(IN;A# and VE*ASCO# !R.# JJ.
ATTY. AMADO 3. DELORIA,
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 14/20
R#;o)%#).+rom"lgatedJ !an"ar >?# >669 -))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-
R E S O L U T I O N
(IN;A# J.J
(his treats o& the Complaint123 &or Dis%arment dated Fe%r"ar 29# 2=== fled %Rogelio . Villan"eva /Villan"eva0 against Att. Amado B. Deloria in connection 'ith *RB CaseNo. REM)667=>)72??# entitled :S%ouses Conrado 5e #racia v. 6state o& Jaie #onzales, et al.< Att. Deloria# a &ormer &"ll)time Commissioner o& the o"sing and *and se Reg"latorBoard /*RB0# appeared as co"nsel &or the spo"ses De ;racia.
Villan"eva avers that a decision in that case 'as rendered % o"sing and *and seAr%iter#1>3 Att. (eresita R. Al&ere@# reG"iring the Estate o& !aime ;on@ales to# among otherthings# re&"nd to the spo"ses De ;racia the amo"nt o& +?=#666.66 pl"s interest at theprevailing commercial interest rates. (he case 'as event"all assigned to Villan"eva "pon thelatter4s designation as Ar%iter.
It appears that Att. Deloria fled a Motion &or Iss"ance o& S"%stit"te !"dgment and
&or Consignation183 claiming that the Estate o& !aime ;on@ales does not 'ant to pa interest%ased on commercial interest rates. Villan"eva asserts# ho'ever# thatAtt. Deloria4s allegation is %elied % t'o motions fled % co"nsel &or the Estate o& !aime;on@ales 'hich merel see$ to clari& the precise interest rate applica%le to the case in order&or it to &"ll compl 'ith the decision.
Att. Deloria4s misrepresentation is allegedl a violation o& theCode o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit /Code0# partic"larl Canons 2#15326#173 2>1?3 and2=193 thereo&# the Attorne4s Oath o& O,ce and Art. 2= o& the Civil Code. Att. Deloria alsoallegedl violated Canon 2213 o& the Code %eca"se he so"ght the s"%stit"tion o& a decision'hich he $ne' had alread %ecome fnal and partiall e-ec"ted.
Villan"eva notes that Att. Deloria enclosed 'ith his motion a chec$ in the amo"nt
o& +?=#666.66 paa%le to the order o& the Estate o& !aime ;on@ales and Cora@on ;on@ales#representing the principal re&"nded to the spo"ses De ;racia in compliance 'ith thedecision. Villan"eva states that the chec$ 'as dra'n against Att. Deloria4spersonal chec$ingacco"nt in violation o& Canon 2?1=3 o& the Code.
Moreover# according to Villan"eva# Att. Deloria oLered him 76Y o& the recovera%leamo"nt in the case i& he resolves the latter4s motion &avora%l. 1263 Att. Deloria4scond"ctallegedl violates the previo"sl cited canons o& the Code# Canon 28# 1223 R"le 27.6?#12>3 Canon27 o& the Code# Art. >2> o& the Revised +enal Code# the Attorne4s Oath o& O,ce and Art. 2= o& the Civil Code.
Villan"eva also alleges that Att. Deloria "sed his inW"ence as &ormer Commissioner
o& the *RB to pers"ade Att. Al&ere@ to impose interest %ased on commercial rates insteado& the interest rate f-ed in Resol"tion No. R)5>2 1283 and Memorand"m Circ"lar No. 2=#1253 %otho& 'hich provide a "ni&orm rate o& interest in decisions involving re&"nds. Att. Deloria alsoallegedl "sed his connections in the *RB to prevent Villan"eva &rom releasing an Orderdening the &ormer4s motion and to prevail "pon the agenc4s *egal Services ;ro"p tointerpret the term :commercial rate o& interest< in a 'a that is &avora%le to his client4s case#again in violation o& the Code.1273
F"rther# Villan"eva claims that Att. Deloria assisted his client in fling an "n&o"nded
criminal case against him %e&ore the O,ce o& the Om%"dsman 'ith the p"rpose o& gettingeven 'ith Villan"eva &or dening their motion. hen his client p"rs"ed this co"rse o& action#Att. Deloria allegedl sho"ld have 'ithdra'n his services in accordance 'ith R"le >>.62#12?3 Canon >> o& the Code.
In his Comment1293 dated Septem%er >># >666# Att. Deloria denies an 'rongdoing
and so"ght the dismissal o& the Complaint &or lac$ o& merit. e avers that the re&"sal o& the
Estate o& !aime ;on@ales to pa the interest stip"lated in the decision is evident &rom the
vario"s motions it has fled. On the alleged commingling o& his &"nds 'ith those o& his clients4#Att. Deloria claims that the spo"ses De ;racia reG"ested him to advance the amo"ntintended &or consignation as the 'ere then on vacation in the nited States. e alsomaintains that he did not e-ert an inW"ence on the *RB to r"le in his clients4 &avor# addingthat the dra&t order 'hich he fled in the case is reG"ired "nder the r"les o& the agenc.
Att. Deloria co"nters that it is Villan"eva 'ho has e-hi%ited partialit in &avor o& the
Estate o& !aime ;on@ales % &ailing to r"le on the motions &or clarifcation fled % the latter#there% &orcing the spo"ses De ;racia to 'ait &or an inordinatel long time &or the decision intheir &avor to %e &"ll implemented.
Villan"eva# in his Repl123 dated Novem%er 26# >666# contends that he 'o"ld have
%een indicted % the O,ce o& the Om%"dsman i& it 'ere tr"e that his Order in the case 'asmotivated % %ias and partialit in &avor o& the Estate o& !aime ;on@ales.
In a Resol"tion12=3 dated Fe%r"ar 2=# >662# 'e re&erred the case to the IntegratedBar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or investigation# report and recommendation.
Investigating Commissioner Renato ;. C"nanan s"%mitted a Report1>63 dated
Septem%er >=# >667# fnding merit in the Complaint and recommending that Att. Deloria %es"spended &rom the practice o& la' &or t'o />0 ears andHor %e fned in the amo"nto& +>6#666.66. (his recommendation 'as ann"lled and set aside % the IB+ in its Resol"tionNo. VII)>66?)>9= dated Ma >?# >66?. (he case 'as instead dismissed &or lac$ o& merit.
(he report and recommendation o& the Investigating Commissioner appears to %e
%ased solel on the Rollo o& the case 'hich the Co"rt sent to the IB+ p"rs"ant to theResol"tion dated Fe%r"ar 2=# >662. (he Investigating Commissioner did not cond"ct anhearing to determine the veracit o& the allegations in Villan"eva4s Complaint and thetr"th&"lness o& Att. Deloria4s ans'ers thereto.
A &ormal investigation is a mandator reG"irement 'hich ma not %e dispensed 'ith
e-cept &or valid and compelling reasons.1>23 In 3aldoar v. Paras,1>>3 'e heldJ
Complaints against la'ers &or miscond"ct are normalladdressed to the Co"rt. I&# at the o"tset# the Co"rt fnds a complaint to %eclearl 'anting in merit# it o"trightl dismisses the case. I&# ho'ever# theCo"rt deems it necessar that &"rther inG"ir sho"ld %e made# s"ch as'hen the matter co"ld not %e resolved % merel eval"ating the pleadingss"%mitted# a re&erral is made to the IB+ &or a &ormal investigation o& thecase d"ring 'hich the parties are accorded an opport"nit to %e heard.An e+-%arte investigation ma onl %e cond"cted 'hen respondent &ails toappear despite reasona%le notice. - - -
R"le 28=)B o& the R"les o& Co"rt provides the proced"re &or investigation indis%arment and disciplinar proceedings against attornes %e&ore the IB+# th"sJ
Sec. . nvestigation.7pon oinder o& iss"es or "pon &ail"re o&
the respondent to ans'er# the Investigator shall# 'ith deli%erate speed#proceed 'ith the investigation o& the case. e shall have the po'er toiss"e s"%poenas and administer oaths. (he respondent shall %e given &"llopport"nit to de&end himsel&# to present 'itnesses on his %ehal&# and %eheard % himsel& and co"nsel. o'ever# i& "pon reasona%le notice# therespondent &ails to appear# the investigation shall proceed e+-%arte.
(he Investigator shall terminate the investigation 'ithin three
/80 months &rom the date o& its commencement# "nless e-tended &or goodca"se % the Board o& ;overnors "pon prior application.
ill&"l &ail"re or re&"sal to o%e a s"%poena or an other la'&"lorder iss"ed % the Investigator shall %e dealt 'ith as &or indirectcontempt o& co"rt. (he corresponding charge shall %e fled % theInvestigator %e&ore the IB+ Board o& ;overnors 'hich shall reG"ire thealleged contemnor to sho' ca"se 'ithin ten /260 das &rom notice. (he
IB+ Board o& ;overnors ma therea&ter cond"ct hearings# i& necessar# in
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 15/20
accordance 'ith the proced"re set &orth in this R"le &or hearings %e&orethe Investigator. S"ch hearing shall as &ar as practica%le %e terminated'ithin f&teen /270 das &rom its commencement. (herea&ter# theIB+ Baord o& ;overnors shall 'ithin a li$e period o& f&teen /270 das iss"ea resol"tion setting &orth its fndings and recommendations# 'hich shall&orth'ith %e transmitted to the S"preme Co"rt &or fnal action and i& 'arranted# the imposition o& penalt.
e fnd that d"e o%servance o& the &oregoing r"les is necessar &or the properresol"tion o& this case.
EREFORE# the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines &or &"rther proceedings. (he IB+ is also directed to act on this re&erral 'ithdeli%erate dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
FIRS( DIVISION
[A.C. No. /215. May 21, 2001]
FELICISIMO M. MONTANO, complainant, vs. INTE7RATED 3AR o 9# ILIINES
AND Ay. JUAN S. DEALCA, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
=AUNAN, J.!
In a verifed complaint fled %e&ore this Co"rt on March =# 2==5# complainant Felicisimo
M. Montano charged Att. !"an Dealca 'ith miscond"ct and pras that he %e :sternl dealt 'it
administrativel.< (he complaint123 is s"mmari@ed as &ollo'sJ
2. On Novem%er 25# 2==># the complainant hired the services o& Att. !"an S. Dealca as
his co"nsel in colla%oration 'ith Att. Ronando *. ;erona in a case pending %e&ore the Co"rt o&
Appeals doc$eted as CA);.R. CV No. 895?9 'herein the complainant 'as the plaintiL)
appellant.
>. (he parties agreed "pon attorne4s &ees in the amo"nt o& +27#666.66# f&t percent
/76Y0 o& 'hich 'as paa%le "pon acceptance o& the case and the remaining %alance "pon the
termination o& the case. Accordingl# complainant paid respondent the amo"nt o& +9#766.66
representing 76Y o& the attorne4s &ee.
8. (herea&ter# even %e&ore the respondent co"nsel had prepared the appellant4s
%rie& and contrar to their agreement that the remaining %alance %e paa%le a&ter the
termination o& the case# Att. Dealca demanded an additional pament &rom
complainant. Complainant o%liged % paing the amo"nt o& +5#666.66.
5. +rior to the fling o& the appellant4s %rie&# respondent co"nsel again demand pament
o& the remaining %alance o& 8#766.66. hen complainant 'as "na%le to do so# respondent
la'er 'ithdre' his appearance as complainant4s co"nsel 'itho"t his prior $no'ledge andHor
con&ormit. Ret"rning the case &older to the complainant# respondent co"nsel attached a Note
dated Fe%r"ar ># 2==8#1>3 statingJ
> Fe%r"ar 2==5
+epe and Del Montano#
For %rea$ing o"r promise# since o" do not 'ant to &"lfll o"r end o& the %argain# here4s o"r
re'ardJ
ence&orth# o" la'er &or o"rselves. ere are o"r papers.
!ohnn
Complainant claimed that s"ch cond"ct % respondent co"nsel e-ceeded the ethical
standards o& the la' pro&ession and pras that the latter %e sternl dealt 'ith
administrativel. Complainant later on fled motions praing &or the imposition o& the
ma-im"m penalt o& dis%arment.
A&ter respondent co"nsel fled his comment on the complaint# the Co"rt in the Resol"tion
o& A"g"st 2# 2==5# re&erred the case to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines /IB+0 &or
investigation# report and recommendation.
(he Investigating Commissioner &o"nd respondent co"nsel g"ilt o& "npro&essional
cond"ct and recommended that he %e :severel reprimanded.< o'ever# in a Resol"tion183 %
the IB+ Board o& ;overnors on !"l >?# 2==9# it 'as resolved that the penalt recommended %
the Investigating Commissioner meted to respondent % amended to :three /80 months
s"spension &rom the practice o& la' &or having %een &o"nd g"ilt o& miscond"ct# 'hich eroded
the p"%lic confdence regarding his d"t as a la'er.<
Respondent co"nsel so"ght reconsideration o& the a&orementioned resol"tion o& the IB+#
alleging that the latter misapprehended the &acts and that# in an case# he did not deserve the
penalt imposed. (he tr"e &acts# according to him# are the &ollo'ingJ
2. Complainant is %eing represented % Att. Ronando *. ;erona in his case on
appeal
>. D"e to the ailment o& Att. ;erona4s da"ghter# he co"ld not prepare and s"%mit
complainant4s appellant4s %rie& on time
8. Complainant 'ent to the respondent to do "st that# i.e.# prepare and s"%mit his
appellant4s %rie& on time at the agreed &ee o& +27#666.66# 76Y do'n and 76Y
"pon its completion
5. or$ing overtime# respondent 'as a%le to fnish the appellant4s %rie& ahead o&
its deadline# so he advised the complainant a%o"t its completion 'ith the
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 16/20
reG"est that the remaining %alance o& +9#766.66 %e paid. Complainant paid
+5#666.66 onl# promising to pa the +8#766.66 :tomorro'< or on :later
partic"lar date.< +lease ta$e note that# at this "nct"re# there 'as alread a
%reach o& the agreement on complainant4s part.
7. hen that :tomorro'< or on a :later partic"lar date< came# respondent# thr" a
messenger# reG"ested the complainant to pa the +8#766.66 as promised %"t
'ord 'as sent that he 'ill again pa :tomorro'< or on :later date.< (his
promise)non)pament ccle 'ent on repeatedl "ntil the last da o& the fling
o& the %rie&. +lease ta$e note again that it 'as not the respondent %"t the
complainant 'ho sets the date 'hen he 'ill pa# et &ails to pa as promised
?. Even 'itho"t %eing paid completel# respondent# o& his o'n &ree 'ill and
accord# fled complainant4s %rie& on time
9. A&ter the %rie& 'as fled# respondent tried to collect &rom the complainant the
remaining %alance o& +8#766.66# %"t the latter made himsel& scarce. As the
records 'o"ld sho'# s"ch +8#766.66 remains "npaid "ntil no'
. Sensing that something 'as amiss# respondent sent the Fe%r"ar ># 2==8 note
and case &older to the complainant# hoping that the latter 'o"ld see
personall the &ormer a%o"t it to settle the matter %et'een them
=. o'ever# instead o& seeing the respondent# complainant fled this case
26. Respondent 'as constrained to fle his 'ithdra'al 'ith the Co"rt o& Appeals
%eca"se o& this case to avoid &"rther mis"nderstanding since he 'as the one
'ho signed the appellant4s %rie& altho"gh Att. ;erona 'as his co"nsel o&
record. S"ch 'ithdra'al 'as accordingl granted % the appellate co"rt
--- --- ---.153
Respondent co"nsel &"rther averred that complainant4s re&"sal to pa the agreed
la'er4s &ees# measl as it 'as# 'as deli%erate and in %ad &aith hence# his 'ithdra'al as
co"nsel 'as :"st# ethical and proper.< Respondent co"nsel concl"ded that not onl 'as the
penalt o& s"spension harsh &or his act o& merel tring to collect pament &or his services
rendered# %"t it indirectl 'o"ld p"nish his &amil since he 'as the sole %read'inner 'ithchildren in school and his 'i&e terminall ill 'ith cancer.
In its Resol"tion No. III)=9)2>= dated Octo%er >7# 2==9# the IB+ denied Att. Dealca4s
motion &or reconsideration# to 'itJ
---
RESO*VED (O DEN Att. Dealca4s Motion For Reconsideration o& the Board4s Decision in the
a%ove)entitled case there %eing no s"%stantive reason to reverse the fnding
therein. Moreover# the motion is improperl laid the remed o& the respondent is to fle the
appropriate pleading 'ith the S"preme Co"rt 'ithin f&teen /270 das &rom receipt o& notice o&
said Decision p"rs"ant to Sec. 2> 1c3 o& R"le 28=)B.173
On Decem%er 26# 2==9# this Co"rt noted the &ollo'ing pleadings fled in the present
complaint#
/a0 notice and a cop o& Resol"tion No. II)=9)275 dated !"l >?# 2==9 o& the
Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines amending the recommendation o& the
Investigating Commissioner o& reprimand to three /80 months s"spension o&
respondent &rom the practice o& la' &or having %een &o"nd g"ilt o&
miscond"ct 'hich eroded the p"%lic confdence regarding his d"t as a
la'er
/%0 complainant4s motion &or praing &or the imposition o& the ma-im"m penalt
o& dis%arment
/c0 otion dated Se%te"er /0, /889 o& res%ondent &or reconsideration o& the
a&oresaid resolution o& Jul$ :;, /889
/d0 commentHopposition o& respondent praing that the motion &or the imposition
o& the ma-im"m penalt %e denied
/e0 comment o& complainant praing that the penalt o& three /80 months
s"spension &or the practice o& la' as recommended % the Integrated Bar o&
the +hilippines p"rs"ant to Resol"tion No. II)=9)275 %e raised to a heavier
penalt
/&0 commentHmani&estationHopposition o& complainant praing that the respondent
%e dis%arred and
/g0 reoinder o& respondent praing that this case %e dismissed &or %eing %aseless.1?3
and re&erred the same to the IB+ &or eval"ation and report.
In compliance there'ith# on March ># 2==# the IB+ iss"ed Resol"tion No. III)=)5>
re&erring the a%ove)entitled case to Commissioner Vi%ar &or eval"ation# report and
recommendation :in vie' o& the Motion &or Reconsideration granted % the S"preme Co"rt.<
(he Investigating Commissioner# a&ter re&erring the case# recommended that his original
recommendation o& the imposition o& the penalt o& reprimand %e maintained# noting that
respondent co"nsel had served the IB+ 'ell as +resident o& the Sorsogon Chapter.193 Accordingl# on Fe%r"ar >8# 2===# the IB+ Board o& ;overnors# iss"ed the &ollo'ing
resol"tionJ
RESOLUTION NO. BIII@@/8
---
RESO*VED to ADO+( and A++ROVE# as it is here% ADO+(ED and A++ROVED# the Report and
Recommendation o& the Investigating Commissioner in the a%ove)entitled case# herein made
part o& this Resol"tionHDecision as Anne- :A< and# fnding the recommendation &"ll s"pported
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 17/20
% the evidence on record and the applica%le la's and r"les# the Motion &or
Reconsideration # &a)#% and that the penalt o& RERIMAND earlier recommended % the
Investigating Commissioner %e imposed on Att. !"an S. Dealca.13
Complainant as$ed the IB+ to reconsider the &oregoing resol"tion %"t the motion 'as
denied.1=3
On April 26# >666# complainant fled 'ith this Co"rt a petition &or revie' on certiorari in
connection 'ith Administrative Case No. 5>27 against the IB+ and respondent co"nsel
averring that the IB+ Board o& ;overnors committed grave a%"se o& discretion 'hen itovert"rned its earlier resol"tion and granted respondent co"nsel4s motion &or reconsideration
on Fe%r"ar >8# 2===. e claimed that the earlier resol"tion dening the motion &or
reconsideration iss"ed on Octo%er >7# 2==9 had alread %ecome fnal and e-ec"tor hence#
an &"rther action or motion s"%seG"ent to s"ch fnal and e-ec"tor "dgment shall %e n"ll
and void.
hen the Co"rt iss"ed the resol"tion o& Decem%er 26# 2==9 treating the several
pleadings fled in the present complaint# it sho"ld %e noted that the IB+ resol"tion dening
respondent4s motion &or reconsideration /Resol"tion No. III)=9)2>=0 dated Octo%er >7# 2==9#
&or some reason# had not et reached this Co"rt. As o& that date# the onl IB+ resol"tion
attached to the records o& the case 'as Resol"tion No. II)=9)75 amending the administrative
sanction &rom reprimand to three months s"spension. ence# at the time the pleadings 'ere
re&erred %ac$ to the IB+ in the same resol"tion# the Co"rt 'as not a'are that the IB+ had
alread disposed o& the motion &or reconsideration fled % respondent co"nsel.
(h"s# 'hen the IB+ 'as in&ormed o& the said Co"rt resol"tion# it constr"ed the same as
granting Att. Dealca4s motion &or reconsideration and as an order &or IB+ to cond"ct a re)
eval"ation o& the case. (he IB+ ass"med that its resol"tion o& Octo%er >7# 2==9 'as alread
considered % this Co"rt 'hen it re&erred the case %ac$ to the IB+. It &ailed to notice that its
resol"tion dening the motion &or reconsideration 'as not among those pleadings and
resol"tion re&erred %ac$ to it.
ence# on the strength o& this Co"rt4s resol"tion 'hich it had inadvertentl
misconstr"ed# the IB+ cond"cted a re)eval"ation o& the case and came "p 'ith the assailed
resol"tion no' so"ght to %e reversed. (he Co"rt holds that the error is not attri%"ta%le to the
IB+. It is regretta%le that the proced"ral infrmit alleged % complainant act"all arose &rom a
mere oversight 'hich 'as attri%"ta%le to neither part.
;oing into the merits# 'e a,rm the fndings made % the IB+ that complainant engaged
the services o& respondent la'er onl &or the preparation and s"%mission o& the appellant4s
%rie& and the attorne4s &ees 'as paa%le "pon the completion and s"%mission o& the
appellant4s %rie& and not "pon the termination o& the case.
(here is s",cient evidence 'hich indicates complainant4s 'illingness to pa the
attorne4s &ees. As agreed "pon# complainant paid hal& o& the &ees in the amo"nt o& +9#766.66
"pon acceptance o& the case. And 'hile the remaining %alance 'as not et d"e as it 'as
agreed to %e paid onl "pon the completion and s"%mission o& the %rie&# complainant
nonetheless delivered to respondent la'er +5#666.66 as the latter demanded. (his#
not'ithstanding# Att. Dealca 'ithdre' his appearance simpl %eca"se o& complainant4s &ail"re
to pa the remaining %alance o& +8#766.66# 'hich does not appear to %e deli%erate. (he
sit"ation 'as aggravated % respondent co"nsel4s note to complainant 'ithdra'ing as co"nsel
'hich 'as co"ched in impolite and ins"lting lang"age.1263
;iven the a%ove circ"mstances# 'as Att. Dealca4s cond"ct "st and properZ
e fnd Att. Dealca4s cond"ct "n%ecoming o& a mem%er o& the legal pro&ession. nder
Canon >> o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit# la'er shall 'ithdra' his services onl &or
good ca"se and "pon notice appropriate in the circ"mstances. Altho"gh he ma 'ithdra' his
services 'hen the client deli%eratel &ails to pa the &ees &or the services#1223 "nder the
circ"mstances o& the present case# Att. Dealca4s 'ithdra'al 'as "n"stifed as complainant
did not deli%eratel &ail to pa him the attorne4s &ees. In &act# complainant e-erted honest
eLorts to &"lfll his o%ligation. Respondent4s contempt"o"s cond"ct does not spea$ 'ell o& a
mem%er o& the %ar considering that the amo"nt o'ing to him 'as onl +8#766.66. R"le >6.5
o& Canon >6# mandates that a la'er shall avoid controversies 'ith clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to "dicial action onl to prevent imposition# in"stice or
&ra"d. Sadl# &or not so large a s"m o'ed to him % complainant# respondent la'er &ailed to
act in accordance 'ith the demands o& the Code.
(he Co"rt# ho'ever# does not agree 'ith complainant4s contention that the ma-im"m
penalt o& dis%arment sho"ld %e imposed on respondent la'er. (he po'er to dis%ar m"st %e
e-ercised 'ith great ca"tion. Onl in a clear case o& miscond"ct that serio"sl aLects the
standing and character o& the la'er as an o,cer o& the Co"rt and mem%er o& the %ar 'ill
dis%arment %e imposed as a penalt. It sho"ld never %e decreed 'here a lesser penalt# s"ch
as temporar s"spension# 'o"ld accomplish the end desired.12>3 In the present case# reprimand
is deemed s",cient.
+EREFORE, in vie' o& the &oregoing# respondent Att. !"an S. Dealca is
RE+RIMANDED 'ith a 'arning that repetition o& the same act 'ill %e dealt 'ith more severel.
SO ORDERED.
5avide, Jr., C.J. (Chairan!, Puno, Pardo, and 4nares-Santiago, JJ., conc"r.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. --. S#;#<#& 2/, 1]
AN7ELITA C. ORCINO, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOSUE 7ASAR, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
UNO, J.!
On !"ne 25# 2==># complainant Angelita C. Orcino fled 'ith this Co"rt a letter)complaint
dated Decem%er 26# 2==2 against respondent Att. !os"e ;aspar# her &ormer
co"nsel. Complainant praed that this Co"rt impose disciplinar sanctions on respondent &or
a%andoning his d"ties and &or &ailing to ret"rn the legal &ees she &"ll paid &or his services.
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 18/20
(he complaint arose &rom the &ollo'ing &actsJ Complainant engaged the services o&
respondent to prosec"te a criminal case she intended to fle against several s"spects in the
slaing o& her h"s%and. In consideration thereo&# complainant %o"nd hersel& to pa
respondent legal &ees o& +>6#666.66 )) +26#666.66 to %e paid "pon signing o& the contract and
the %alance to %e paid on or %e&ore the concl"sion o& the case. Complainant 'as also to
pa +766.66 per appearance o& respondent %e&ore the co"rt and fscal. (his agreement 'as
em%odied in a contract e-ec"ted on Fe%r"ar >># 2==2. 123
In accordance 'ith the contract# complainant paid respondent the s"m o& +7#666.66 on
Fe%r"ar >7# 2==2#1>3 another +7#666.66 on March 82# 2==2#183 and +26#666.66 on Ma >2#
2==2#153 &or a total o& +>6#666.66.
Forth'ith# respondent entered into his d"ties. e intervie'ed 'itnesses and gathered
evidence to %"ild a case against the s"spects. e dre' "p the necessar s'orn statements
and d"ti&"ll attended the preliminar investigation. (he case 'as therea&ter fled 'ith the
Regional (rial Co"rt# Branch 89# Baloc# Sto. Domingo# N"eva Ecia. 173
As private prosec"tor# respondent religio"sl attended the %ail hearings &or the acc"sed
altho"gh these hearings 'ere postponed on motion o& the acc"sedKs co"nsel. Respondent
ho'ever &ailed to attend the hearing sched"led in A"g"st 2==2. It 'as at this hearing that the
co"rt# over complainantKs o%ections# granted %ail to all the acc"sed. A&ter the hearing#
complainant immediatel 'ent to respondentKs residence and con&ronted him 'ith his
a%sence.1?3 Respondent e-plained that he did not receive &ormal notice o& the hearing.193 Complainant %ecame %elligerent and started acc"sing him o& eopardi@ing the case % his
a%sence. Respondent said that her s"spicions 'ere %ased on r"mors and intrig"es &ed to her
% her relatives.13 Complainant# ho'ever# contin"ed acc"sing him %elligerentl. She as$ed &or
the records o& the case saing that she co"ld re&er them to another la'er. St"ng % her
'ords# respondent gave her the records.1=3
Complainant never ret"rned the records nor did she see respondent. On Septem%er 2#
2==2# respondent fled %e&ore the trial co"rt a Motion to ithdra' as Co"nsel.1263 (he motion
did not %ear the consent o& complainant.
On Octo%er >8# 2==2# the co"rt iss"ed an order directing respondent to sec"re
complainantKs consent to the motion and his appearance as private prosec"tor shall contin"e
"ntil he has sec"red this consent.1223
Complainant re&"sed to sign her con&ormit to respondentKs 'ithdra'al. 12>3 Mean'hile#the hearings in the criminal case contin"ed. Respondent did not appear at the hearings nor
did he contact complainant. Complainant 'as th"s compelled to engage the services o&
another la'er. ence# the letter)compla int.
e re&erred the letter)complaint to the Integrated Bar o& the +hilippines# Commission on
Bar Discipline# &or investigation# report and recommendation.
(he r"le in this "risdiction is that a client has the a%sol"te right to terminate the
attorne)client relation at an time 'ith or 'itho"t ca"se. 1283 (he right o& an attorne to
'ithdra' or terminate the relation other than &or s",cient ca"se is# ho'ever# considera%l
restricted.1253 Among the &"ndamental r"les o& ethics is the principle that an attorne 'ho
"nderta$es to cond"ct an action impliedl stip"lates to carr it to its concl"sion.1273 e is not at
li%ert to a%andon it 'itho"t reasona%le ca"se. 12?3 A la'erKs right to 'ithdra' &rom a case
%e&ore its fnal ad"dication arises onl &rom the clientKs 'ritten consent or &rom a good ca"se.1293
Section >? o& R"le 28 o& the Revised R"les o& Co"rt providesJ
Sec. >?. Change o& attorne$s )) An attorne ma retire at an time &rom an
action or special proceeding# % the 'ritten consent o& his client fled in co"rt. e
ma also retire at an time &rom an action or special proceeding# 'itho"t the
consent o& his client# sho"ld the co"rt# on notice to the client and attorne# and on
hearing# determine that he o"ght to %e allo'ed to retire. In case o& s"%stit"tion#the name o& the attorne ne'l emploed shall %e entered on the doc$et o& the
co"rt in place o& the &ormer one# and 'ritten notice o& the change shall %e given to
the adverse part.
- - -.
A la'er ma retire at an time &rom an action or special proceeding 'ith the 'ritten
consent o& his client fled in co"rt and cop thereo& served "pon the adverse part. Sho"ld the
client re&"se to give his consent# the la'er m"st fle an application 'ith the co"rt. (he co"rt#
on notice to the client and adverse part# shall determine 'hether he o"ght to %e allo'ed to
retire. (he application &or 'ithdra'al m"st %e %ased on a good ca"se.123
In the instant case# complainant did not give her 'ritten consent to respondentKs
'ithdra'al. (he co"rt th"s ordered respondent to sec"re this consent. Respondent allegedl
in&ormed the co"rt that complainant had %ecome hostile and re&"sed to sign his motion.12=3 e#
ho'ever# did not fle an application 'ith the co"rt &or it to determine 'hether he sho"ld %e
allo'ed to 'ithdra'.
;ranting that respondentKs motion 'itho"t complainantKs consent 'as an application &or
'ithdra'al 'ith the co"rt# 'e fnd that this reason is ins",cient to "sti& his 'ithdra'al &rom
the case. RespondentKs 'ithdra'al 'as made on the gro"nd that there no longer e-ist1ed3 the
--- confdence %et'een them and that there had %een serio"s diL&erences %et'een them
relating to the manner o& private prosec"tion. 1>63
R"le >>.62 o& Canon >> o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit providesJ
CANON >> )) A *AER SA** I(DRA IS SERVICES ON* FOR ;OOD CASE AND +ONNO(ICE A++RO+RIA(E IN (E CIRCMS(ANCES.
R"le >>.62)) A la'er ma 'ithdra' his services in an o& the &ollo'ing casesJ
a0 hen the client p"rs"es an illegal or immoral co"rse o& cond"ct in connection 'ith the
matter he is handling
%0 hen the client insists that the la'er p"rs"e cond"ct violative o& these canons and r"les
c0 hen his ina%ilit to 'or$ 'ith co)co"nsel 'ill not promote the %est interest o& the client
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 19/20
d0 hen the mental or phsical condition o& the la'er renders it di,c"lt &or him to carr o"t
the emploment eLectivel
e0 hen the client deli%eratel &ails to pa the &ees &or the services or &ails to compl 'ith the
retainer agreement
&0 hen the la'er is elected or appointed to p"%lic o,ce and
g0 Other similar cases.
A la'er ma 'ithdra' his services & rom his client onl in the &ollo'ing instancesJ /a0 'hen a
client insists "pon an "n"st or immoral cond"ct o& his case /%0 'hen the client insists that the
la'er p"rs"e cond"ct violative o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit /c0 'hen the client
has t'o or more retained la'ers and the la'ers co"ld not get along to the detriment o& the
case /d0 'hen the mental or phsical condition o& the la'er ma$es him incapa%le o& handling
the case eLectivel /e0 'hen the client deli%eratel &ails to pa the attorneKs &ees agreed
"pon /&0 'hen the la'er is elected or appointed to p"%lic o,ce /g0 other similar cases.
(he instant case does not &all "nder an o& the gro"nds mentioned. Neither can this %e
considered analogo"s to the gro"nds en"merated. As &o"nd % the Commission on Bar
Discipline# this case arose &rom a simple mis"nderstanding %et'een complainant and
respondent. Complainant 'as "pset % respondentKs a%sence at the hearing 'here %ail 'as
granted to the s"spected $illers o& her h"s%and. She vehementl opposed the grant o& %ail. It
'as th"s a spontaneo"s and nat"ral reaction &or her to con&ront respondent 'ith his
a%sence. er %elligerence arose &rom her over@ealo"sness# nothing more. ComplainantKs
'ords and actions ma have h"rt respondentKs &eelings considering the 'or$ he had p"t into
the case. B"t her 'ords 'ere "ttered in a %"rst o& passion. And even at that moment#
complainant did not e-pressl terminate respondentKs services. She made this clear 'hen she
re&"sed to sign his Motion to ithdra' as Co"nsel.
Ass"ming# nevertheless# that respondent 'as "stifed in terminating his services# he#
ho'ever# cannot "st do so and leave complainant in the cold "nprotected. (he la'er has no
right to pres"me that his petition &or 'ithdra'al 'ill %e granted % the co"rt.1>23 ntil his
'ithdra'al shall have %een approved# the la'er remains co"nsel o& record 'ho is e-pected
% his client as 'ell as % the co"rt to do 'hat the interests o& his client reG"ire. 1>>3 e m"st
still appear on the date o& hearing1>83 &or the attorne)client relation does not terminate
&ormall "ntil there is a 'ithdra'al o& record.1>53
Respondent e-pressl %o"nd himsel& "nder the contract to %ring the criminal case to its
termination. e 'as in &act paid in &"ll &or his services. Respondent &ailed to compl 'ith his
"nderta$ing# hence# it is %"t &air that he ret"rn to complainant hal& o& the amo"nt paid
him. (he pec"liar circ"mstances o& the case have rendered it impossi%le &or respondent and
complainant to contin"e their relation "nder the contract.
IN VIE+ +EREOF# respondent is admonished to e-ercise more pr"dence and
"dicio"sness in dealing 'ith his clients. e is also ordered to ret"rn to complainant 'ithin
f&teen /270 das &rom notice the amo"nt o& ten tho"sand pesos /+26#666.660 representing a
portion o& his legal &ees received &rom the latter 'ith a 'arning that &ail"re on his part to do so
'ill res"lt in the imposition o& stiLer disciplinar action.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, (Chairan! and Torres, Jr., JJ., conc"r.
Mendoza, J., on o,cial leave.
SECIAL TIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6166 ! Ja)4a&y 10, 2011]
MARIA EARL 3EVERLY C. CENI?A VS. ATTY. VIVIAN 7. RU3IA
S$&KM#%a<#!
Please ta)e notice that the Court, Third 5ivision, issued a Resolution dated 10 Ja)4a&y2011# 'hich reads as &ollo'sJ
A.C. No. 6166 Ma&$a Ea&( 3#'#&(y C. C#)$a '. Ay. V$'$a) 7. R4$a. ) On Octo%er >#>66=# the Co"rt prom"lgated its decision fnding respondent Att. Vivian ;. R"%ia g"ilt o&violating R"le 2.68 and Canon >> o& the Code o& +ro&essional Responsi%ilit# 'hich imposes"pon ever mem%er o& the %ar the d"t to dela no man &or mone or malice. She 'as ordereds"spended &rom the practice o& la' &or si- /?0 months eLective immediatel# 'ith a 'arningthat similar in&ractions in the &"t"re 'ill %e dealt 'ith more severel.
On Novem%er >9# >66=# respondent fled a ver "rgent motion &or reconsideration. (he motion'as denied on !an"ar 28# >626 &or lac$ o& merit. (his 'as &ollo'ed % another "rgent fnal/second0 motion &or reconsideration fled on Fe%r"ar >7# >626# 'hich 'as event"all deniedon April 25#>626#
On March >># >626# "pon %eing in&ormed that the s"spension order 'as fnal p"rs"ant to anAdministrative Circ"lar o& the S"preme Co"rt# respondent commenced her desistance &rom thepractice o& la' 'hich lasted "ntil Septem%er >># >626.
On Octo%er ># >626# respondent fled a Mani&estationHReport 'ith Motion to Iss"e an Order*i&ting the Si-)Month S"spension# stating therein that she had earlier s"%mitted a Report o&Compliance to this Co"rt on Septem%er >8# >626 that she had &"ll served the s"spensionorder that she 'as not a'are o& the proced"re that a S'orn Statement 'as necessar asproo& o& the same that certifcations &rom the local chapter o& the Integrated Bar o& the+hilippines /IB+0 and O,ce o& the E-ec"tive !"dge o& the Regional (rial Co"rt# Davao del S"r#'ere iss"ed in her &avor# attesting that she had complied 'ith the s"spension order that she
is s"%mitting the reG"ired S'orn Statement and that# there&ore#. she pras that the order o&s"spension %e li&ted.
In line 'ith the g"idelines set % the Co"rt in <iga$a Maniago v. Att$. <ourdes . de 5ios#123 theCo"rt fnds the S'orn Statement s"%mitted % respondent# 'ith copies &"rnished the IB+ *ocalChapter# Davao del S"r# and the diLerent 2 st level and >nd level co"rts# 'here she has pendingcases and 'here she had appeared as co"nsel# in accordance 'ith the Co"rtKs directive.
(he Co"rt ta$es this occasion to remind respondent to cond"ct hersel&# especiall in herdealings 'ith her clients and the p"%lic at large# 'ith honest and integrit in a manner%eond reproach.1>3 (he Co"rt 'ill not hesitate to 'ithhold this privilege o& the practice o& la'i& respondent &ails to &aith&"ll per&orm her d"ties to societ# to the %ar# to the co"rts# and toher clients compliant 'ith the strict demands and high standards o& the legal pro&ession.
Acting on the Motion# respondentKs s"spension is LIFTED. Att. Vivian ;. R"%ia is allo'edto RESUMEher practice o& la' 'ith a STERN +ARNIN7 that the commission in the &"t"re o&the same in&raction or other violations o& her d"ties as a la'er shall %e dealt 'ith more
severel.
7/21/2019 Canons 21 22
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canons-21-22 20/20
*et a cop o& this Resol"tion %e &"rnished the O,ce o& the Bar Confdant and entered inrespondentKs personal record. SO ORDERED.