case digest ethics chap4

8/17/2019 CASE Digest Ethics Chap4

1/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

CASES FACTS ISSUE RULING

Francisco vs.Portugal

Complainants filed before this Court an affidavit-complaint on 15 August 2003 against Att . !aime !uanito P. Portugal "respondent# for violation of the $a% er&s 'ath( gross misconduct( and grossnegligence.

'n 21 )arch 1**+( ,P'1 rnesto C. Francisco( ,P'1 onato F. /anand P'3 olando ). !oa uin "eventuall petitioners in . . o.152421-23( collectivel referred to herein as the accused# %ereinvolved in a shooting incident %hich resulted in the death of t%oindividuals and the serious in ur of another. As a result( 6nformation%ere filed against them before the ,andiganba an for murder andfrustrated murder. ,andiganba an found the accused guilt of t%ocounts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide.Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for theaccused. espondent then filed a )otion for econsideration %ith the,andiganba an but it %as denied in a esolution dated 21 August2001.

7nfa8ed b the denial( respondent filed an 7rgent )otion for $eave toFile ,econd )otion for econsideration( %ith the attached ,econd)otion for econsideration. /hereafter( complainants never heard fromrespondent again despite the fre uent telephone calls the made to hisoffice. 9hen respondent did not return their phone in uiries(complainants %ent to respondent&s last :no%n address onl to find outthat he had moved out %ithout an for%arding address.

Court issued %arrant of arrest for the accused. espondent states thatit is of vital significance that the Court notes that he %as not the originalcounsel of the accused. ;e onl met the accused during thepromulgation of the ,andiganba an decision. espondent recountedall the


2/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

Att . a o ag maintained that he moved for an e@tension to file %hich%as granted but the esolution granting the first e@tension contained a%arning that no further e@tension %ill be given. Att . a o ag %as nota%are of this because %hen he filed his motion for the last e@tensionfor 20da s( he had not et received the said esolution. espondentattorne denied the allegations against him

B6 $6 6 '' FA6/; A 6 /; ;' ,/= $6 F /;A/ /; F6 ,/ )'/6' F' / ,6'F' 30 AD, 9'7$ = A / - 96/;'7/ /;9A 6 - ,6 C 6/ 9A, ) $D A F6 ,/

/ ,6' . /hen even as 6 %as terribl saddled %ithheav load and at times had some difficult in getting intouch %ith complainant( 6 dropped ever thing to be ableto beat the supposed deadline of August 1+th( 1**4.E

/he investigating commissioner reasoned espondent has failed tosho% that he e@ercised that degree of competence and diligencere uired of him in prosecuting complainant&s petition for certioraribefore the ;onorable ,upreme Court. ;is reliance on good faith

cannot be credited full in his favor. $a% ers should not presume thatthe courts %ould grant their motion for e@tension of time to file there uired pleading or brief nor e@pect that the e@tension that ma begranted shall be counted from notice.

egardless of the agreement he had %ith complainant %ithrespect to the pa ment of his fees( respondent o%ed it tocomplainant to do his utmost to ensure that ever remedallo%ed b la% is availed of.

ule 1+.0+ of the Code of Professional esponsibilit en oinsever la% er to devote his full attention( diligence( s:ills( andcompetence to ever case that he accepts. Pressure and largevolume of legal %or: do not e@cuse respondent for filing thepetition for certiorari out of time.

evertheless( having said this( it ought to be remembered( onthe other hand( that respondent e@erted efforts to protect therights and interests of complainant( including tr ing to secure areconsideration of the denial of his petition for certiorari in thisCourt. For this reason( %e are inclined to adopt the investigating

commissioner&s recommendation that respondent be merelreprimanded for his simple neglect of dut .

Arellano7niversit vs.

)i ares 666

University entrusted500,000 to attorneyto get MMDA’sapproval but did notdo so money !asnot returned

/his disbarment case is about the need for a la% er to account for funds entrusted to him b his client.

,ometime in !anuar 200+( complainant Arellano 7niversit ( 6nc. "the7niversit # engaged the services of respondent $eovigildo ;. )i ares666( a member of the =ar( for securing a certificate of title covering adried up portion of the stero de ,an )iguel that the 7niversit hadbeen occup ing. /he propert %as the sub ect of a eed of @change

dated 'ctober 1( 1*5 bet%een the Cit of )anila and the 7niversit .

6n its complaint for disbarment against )i ares( the 7niversit allegedthat it gave him all the documents he needed to accomplish his %or:.$ater( )i ares as:ed the 7niversit for and %as given P500(000.00 ontop of his attorne &s fees( supposedl to cover the e@penses for


3/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

copies of the )) A approval but he un ustifiabl failed to compldespite his client&s repeated demands. 7niversit %rote )i ares bregistered letter( formall terminating his services in the titling matter and demanding the return of the P500(000.00. =ut the letter could notbe served because he changed office address %ithout telling the7niversit .

Commissioner Funa submitted his eport and ecommendation 1 inthe case to the 6ntegrated =ar of the Phillippines& =oard of overnors./he eport said that the 7niversit did not authori8e )i ares togiveP500(000.00 to the then )) A eput Chairman Cesar $acuna?that )i ares had been unable to account for and return that monedespite repeated demands? and that he admitted under oath havingbribed a government official.

uite dishonest. /he Court is not( therefore( inclined to let him off %ith the penalt of indefinite suspension %hich is another %a of sa ing he can resume his practice after a time if he returns themone and ma:es a promise to shape up.

/he Court finds respondent $eovigildo ;. )i ares 666( a member of the =ar( 76$/D of violation of ules 1.01 and 1.02( Canon15( ule 15.05( Canon 14( ules 14.01 and 14.03( and Canon1 ( ule 1 .0+ of the Code of Professional esponsibilit andimposes on him the penalt of 6,=A ) /.

Guiambao vs.=amba

Attorney is thecounsel of the

petitioner and thecounsel for thecompany !"c

petitioner !or#ed and resigned

6n this administrative case for disbarment( complainant Felicitas ,.Guiambao charges respondent Att . estor A. =amba %ith violation of the Code of Professional esponsibilit for representing conflictinginterests %hen the latter filed a case against her %hile he %as at thattime representing her in another case( and for committing other acts of

dislo alt and double-dealing.

From !une 2000 to !anuar 2001( the complainant %as the presidentand managing director of Allied 6nvestigation =ureau( 6nc. "A6=#( afamil -o%ned corporation engaged in providing securit andinvestigation services. ,he avers that she procured the legal servicesof the respondent not onl for the corporate affairs of A6= but also for her personal case. Particularl ( the respondent acted as her counsel of record in an e ectment case against ,pouses ,antiago and Florita/orroba filed before the )e/C of ParaHa ue Cit .

About si@ months after she resigned as A6= president( or on 1+ !une

2001( the respondent filed on behalf of A6= a complaint for replevinand damages against her before the )e/C of Gue8on Cit for thepurpose of recovering from her the car of A6= assigned to her as aservice vehicle. /his he did %ithout %ithdra%ing as counsel of record inthe e ectment case( %hich %as then still pending.

the complainant( in her Position Paper( charges the respondent %ithacts of dislo alt and double-dealing. ,he avers that the respondentproposed to her that she organi8e her o%n securit agenc and that he%ould assist her in its organi8ation( causing her to resign as presidentof A6=. /he respondent indeed assisted her in ecember 2000 in theformation of another securit agenc ( Guiambao is: )anagement,pecialists( 6nc. For his part( the respondent admits that herepresented the complainant in the aforementioned e ectment caseand later represented A6= in the replevin case against her. ;e(

Whether therespondentis guilt o"

misconduct"or

representingcon"lictinginterests in

contravention o" the

#asic tenetso" the legalpro"ession.

ule 15.03( Canon 5 of the Code of Professional esponsibilitprovides


4/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

ho%ever( denies that he %as the oluntar 'ffer to ,ell ">',# to the epartment of Agrarian eform" A #.

6n )a 2004( Presbitero&s daughter( )a. /heresa P. Dulo "Dulo#( alsoengaged respondent&s services to handle the registration of her 1 . 5-hectare lot located in asud-ong( Caradio-an( ;imama lan( egros.Dulo convinced her sister( avarro( to finance the e@penses for theregistration of the propert . espondent undertoo: to register thepropert in consideration of 30J of the value of the propert once it isregistered. espondent obtained P200(000 from avarro for theregistration e@penses.

'n 25 )a 2004( respondent obtained a loan of P1(000(000 fromavarro to finance his sugar trading business. 6n !une 2004(

respondent obtained an additional loan of P1(000(000 from avarro(covered b a second )'A %ith the same terms and conditions as thefirst )'A. espondent obtained a loan of P1(000(000 from Presbiterocovered b a third )'A( e@cept that the real estate mortgage %as over a 243-s uare-meter propert located in =aranga /aculing( =acolodCit .

espondent failed to pa the loan but instead he uestioned the termsof the loans as he claimed that the interest rate of said loans at 10J isunconscionable.

Whether respondentviolated the

ode o" *ro"essionalResponsi#ili

t

Clearl ( respondent is guilt of engaging in dishonest anddeceitful conduct( both in his professional capacit %ith respectto his client( Presbitero( and in his private capacit %ith respectto complainant avarro. =oth Presbitero and avarro allo%edrespondent to draft the terms of the loan agreements.

espondent drafted the )'As :no%ing that the interest rates%ere e@orbitant. $ater( using his :no%ledge of the la%( heassailed the validit of the same )'As he prepared.

&A'(' $). * A +A -E / A++ (+D 1' 2 U/2 A++M('E-/ A'D 3 (3E 21E/ (4 1/ &+1E'2 2 A2 MA- &(ME 1'2( 1/ 3(//E//1('.

ule $).0$ A la!yer shall account for all money or

property collected or received for or from the client.

/he fiduciar nature of the relationship bet%een the counsel andhis client imposes on the la% er the dut to account for themone or propert collected or received for or from his client.+9e agree %ith the 6=P-C= that respondent failed to fulfill thisdut . 6n this case( the 6=P-C= pointed out that respondentreceived various amounts from complainants but he could notaccount for all of them.

Clearl ( respondent had been negligent in properl accountingfor the mone he received from his client( Presbitero. 6ndeed( hisfailure to return the e@cess mone in his possession gives rise tothe presumption that he has misappropriated it for his o%n use tothe pre udice of( and in violation of the trust reposed in him b (the client.

iven the facts of the case( %e see no reason to deviate fromthe recommendation of the 6=P-C= imposing on respondentthe penalt of disbarment. espondent failed to live up to thehigh standard of moralit ( honest ( integrit ( and fair dealingre uired of him as a member of the legal profession. 6nstead(respondent emplo ed his :no%ledge and s:ill of the la% andtoo: advantage of his client to secure undue gains for himself.

Penilla vs. Alcid

!r.

Complainant !ulian Penilla entered into an agreement %ith ,pouses

e and vel n arin "the spouses# for the repair of his >ol:s%agenautomobile. espite full pa ment( the spouses defaulted in their

W N

respondentviolated 9e sustain the findings of the 6=P that respondent committedprofessional negligence under Canon 1 and ule 1 .0+ of the


5/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

6ol#s!agen. Estafa. Attorney cannot befound, petitionerresorted to radio legal aid

obligation. /hus( complainant decided to file a case for breach of contract against the spouses %here he engaged the services of

respondent as counsel.

espondent sent a demand letter to the spouses and as:ed for therefund of complainant&s pa ment. 9hen the spouses failed to returnthe pa ment( respondent advised complainant that he %ould file acriminal case for estafa against said spouses. espondent chargedP30(000 as attorne &s fees and P10(000 as filing fees. Complainantturned over the relevant documents to respondent and paid the fees intranches. espondent then filed the complaint for estafa before Asst.Cit Prosecutor !ose C. Fortuno of the 'ffice of the Cit Prosecutor of Gue8on Cit .

Complainant alleges that %hen the case %as submitted for resolution(respondent told him that the have to give a bottle of Carlos Primero 6to Asst. Cit Prosecutor Fortuno to e@pedite a favorable resolution of the case. Complainant claims that despite initial reservations( he later acceded to respondent&s suggestion( bought a bottle of Carlos Primero6 for P*50 and delivered it to respondent&s office.

Asst. Cit Prosecutor Fortuno later issued a resolution dismissing theestafa case against the spouses. After complainant signed thecomplaint( he %as told b respondent to a%ait further notice as to thestatus of the case. Complainant claims that respondent never gavehim an update thereafter.

'n ecember 11( 200 ( the 6=P =oard of overnors issued esolutionadopting and approving the recommendation of the 6=P-C= . /he

esolution reads espondent&s violation of Canon 1 and ule 1 .0+of the Code of Professional esponsibilit for his negligence( Att .Guintin P. Alcid( !r. is hereb ,7,P from the practice of la% for si@ "4# months.

*R

Code of Professional esponsibilit ( %ith a modification that %ealso find respondent guilt of violating Canon 1I and ule 1 .03of the Code and the $a% er&s 'ath.

A la% er ma be disbarred or suspended for an violation of hisoath( a patent disregard of his duties( or an odious deportmentunbecoming an attorne . A la% er must at no time be %anting inprobit and moral fiber %hich are not onl conditions precedentto his entrance to t he =ar but are li:e%ise essential demands for his continued membership therein.

A revie% of the proceedings and the evidence in the case at bar sho%s that respondent violated Canon 1 and ules 1 .03 and1 .0+ of the Code of Professional esponsibilit . Complainantcorrectl alleged that respondent violated his oath under Canon1 to


6/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

ife of deceased7ritish nationalaccused of gravecoercion !ithrespondent attorney.

Attorney left his client !hile the criminalcase !as pending

dge#( a domestic corporation. 6n order to settle the affairs of her

deceased husband( complainant engaged the services of respondent.

'n !une 22( 200+( complainant and respondent met %ith Matherine)oscoso =antegui a ma or stoc:holder of Consulting dge(I in order to discuss the settlement of avid&s interest in the compan . /heagreed to another meeting %hich %as( ho%ever( postponed b=antegui. ,uspecting that the latter %as merel stalling for time inorder to hide something( respondent insisted that the appointmentproceed as scheduled.

;o%ever( prior to the scheduled meeting( complainant %as prevailedupon b respondent to put a paper seal on the door of the saidpremises( assuring her that the same %as legal. ,ubse uentl (ho%ever( respondent( %ithout the consent of =antegui( caused thechange in the loc: of the Consulting dge office door %hich preventedthe emplo ees thereof from entering and carr ing on the operations of the compan . /his prompted =antegui to file before the 'ffice of theCit Prosecutor of )a:ati "Prosecutor&s 'ffice# a complaint for gravecoercion against complainant and respondent. espondent advisedcomplainant to file criminal and civil cases against =anteguie.

A %arrant of arrest %as issued against them( then espondent advisedcomplainant to go into hiding until he filed the necessar motions incourt. ;o%ever respondent abandoned complainant %hile the gravecoercion case is pending and stopped all communication and despite

diligent efforts of Complainant to reach respondent she failed.

e@ercise the re uired degree of diligence in handling their affairs.For his part( the la% er is e@pected to maintain at all times a highstandard of legal proficienc ( and to devote his full attention( s:ill(and competence to the case( regardless of its importance and%hether he accepts it for a fee or for free. /o this end( he isen oined to emplo onl fair and honest means to attain la%fulob ectives. /hese principles are embodied in Canon 1I( ule1 .03 of Canon 1 ( and ule 1*.01 of Canon 1*.

&A'(' $8 * A la!yer o!es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed inhim.&A'(' $9 A la!yer shall serve his client !ith competenceand diligence.

: : : :ule $9.0; A la!yer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there!ithshall render him liable.

: : : :&A'(' $< A la!yer shall represent his client !ith =eal !ithin the bounds of the la!.

ule $ectives of his client and shall not

present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantagein any case or proceeding.

Meeping %ith the foregoing rules( the Court finds thatrespondent failed to e@ercise the re uired diligence inhandling complainant&s cause since he first( failed torepresent her competentl and diligentl b acting andproffering professional advice be ond the proper bounds of la%? and( second( abandoned his client&s cause %hile thegrave coercion case against them %as pending.

9; F' respondent Att . ustico =. agate is foundguilt of violating Canon 1I ule 1 .03 of Canon 1 and

ule 1*.01 of Canon 1* of the Code of Professionalesponsibilit . Accordingl ( he is hereb ,7,P from

the practice of la% for a period of 3 ears>oluntad-amire8 vs.=autista

3etitioner !anted tofile a complaint

/his administrative case arose from a complaint filed b ;erminia P.>oluntad- amire8 "complainant# against Att . osario =. =autista"respondent# for violation of Canon 1 ( ule 1 .02( and ule 22.02 of the Code of Professional esponsibilit ( violation of the la% erNs oath(grave misconduct( and conduct pre udicial to the best interest of thepublic.

Petitioner engaged the legal services of respondent to file a

'he issue inthis case is

whether respondentis guilt o" negligencein handlingthe case o"

9e agree %ith the f inding of the 6nvestigating Commissioner thatrespondent breached his dut to serve his client %ithcompetence and diligence. espondent is also guilt of violating

ule 1 .03 of the Code of Professional esponsibilit ( %hichstates that


7/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

against her siblingsattorney in delay for ) mos. 3etitioner!anted refund of $?@

complaint against complainant&s siblings for encroachment of her rightof %a . For his legal services( respondent demanded P 15(000 asacceptance fee( plus P 1(000 per court appearance.

,i@ months after she hired respondent( complainant severed the legalservices of respondent because respondent failed to file a complaint%ithin a reasonable period of time as re uested b complainant.Complainant then retrieved from respondent the folder containing thedocuments and letters pertaining to her case %hich complainant hadentrusted to respondent. Complainant claimed that she %asdissatisfied %ith the %a respondent handled her complaintconsidering that during the si@ months that elapsed( respondent onlsent a letter to the Cit ngineer&s 'ffice in avotas Cit concerningher complaint.

espondent failed to refund the P 1+(000( prompting complainant tofile on her complaint %ith the 'ffice of the =ar Confidant of the,upreme Court. Complainant charged respondent %ith violation of Code of Professional esponsibilit ( violation of the la% er&s oath(

grave misconduct( and conduct pre udicial to the best interest of thepublic.

6n his defense( respondent alleges that complainant initiall %antedhim to file an in unction case against her siblings but later changed her mind %hen she %as apprised of the e@penses involved. espondentthen advised complainant that since her case involves familmembers( earnest efforts to%ard a compromise should be made inaccordance %ith Article 222 of the Civil Code.

2he 1nvestigating &ommissioner held that respondent has the moral duty torestitute 3 $?,000 out of the 3 $5,000 acceptance fee considering that, apart from sending a letter to the &ity Engineer of 'avotas &ity, respondent did nothing more to advance his client’s cause during the si: months that complainant engaged his legal services.

complainant

respondent immediatel turned over to complainant the folder containing the documents and letters pertaining to her case uponthe severance of respondent&s legal services.

'nce a la% er receives the acceptance fee for his legal services(he is e@pected to serve his client %ith competence( and to attendto his client&s cause %ith diligence( care and devotion. 6n thiscase( respondent attributes his dela in filing the appropriatecriminal case to the absence of conciliation proceedingsbet%een complainant and her siblings before the baranga asre uired under Article 222 of the Civil Code and the $ocal

overnment Code.

;o%ever( this e@cuse is belied b the Certification to File Actionb the 'ffice of the +upong 2agapamayapa ( 'ffice of the=aranga Council( =aranga aanghari( avotas. complainantis as:ing for the refund of P 1+(000 out of the P 15(000

acceptance fee considering that( apart from sending a letter tothe Cit ngineer of avotas Cit ( respondent did nothing moreto advance his client&s cause during the si@ months thatcomplainant engaged his legal services. 9e agree %ith therecommendation of the 6nvestigating Commissioner and the 6=P=oard of overnors that a refund is in order.

Att . osario =. =autista G$%&'( of violating Canon 1 and ule1 .03 of the Code of Professional esponsibilit and he is0 N%) + to e@ercise greater care and diligence in theperformance of his dut t o his clients. Att . =autista is ordered toR+)'%'$'+ to complainant P 1+(000 out of the P 15(000acceptance fee.

one vs. A 6n 1* *( Patricio one filed against Att . )acario a before the "6=P#complaint for disciplinar action. /he complaint %as due to Att . asfailure to reconstitute or turn over the records of the case in hispossession. Att . a is his counsel in $ C Case %hich %asdismissed b the $abor Arbiter and %as elevated to the ational $abor

elations Commission " $ C#. 'n 13 ecember 1* 3( the $ C building in 6ntramuros( )anila %asburned and among the records destro ed %as his appealed case.;o%ever( one reported that as earl as )arch 1* +( Att . a had

obtained a certification from the $ C that the records %ere burned(et did not do an thing to to reconstitute the records of the appealed

W N 0tt .Ga was

censured "or violation o" Rule 14. 3,anon 14 o" the *R

ule 1 .03. A la% er shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted tohim( and his negligence in connection there%ith shall render himliable.

ule 1 .0+. A la% er shall :eep the client informed of the statusof his case and shall respond %ithin a reasonable time to theclients re uest for information.

espondent Att . a breached these duties %hen he failed toreconstitute or turn over the records of the case to his client(

herein complainant one. ;is negligence manifests lac: of competence and diligence re uired of ever la% er. ;is failure to


8/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

case.

Complainant allegedl sent a letter to Att . a re uesting him to return

the records of the case in his possession. Att . a averred that had itnot been for the instant complaint( he %ould not have( as he never(heard from complainant one since 1* +. 9hat he %as a%are of %asthe latter&s abandonment of his famil %a bac: in 1*I . Complainant&s%ife is the relative of Att . a( being the daughter of his first cousin.

Commissioner )aril n ,. u8man( 6=P Commission on =ar iscipline(submitted her report recommending that respondent Att . a becensured for violation of ule 1 .03( Canon 1 of the Code of Professional esponsibilit

compl %ith the re uest of his client %as a gross betra al of hisfiduciar dut and a breach of the trust reposed upon him b hisclient.

/he moment he agreed to handle the case( he %as bound togive it his utmost attention( s:ill and competence. Public interestre uires that he e@erts his best efforts and all his learning andabilit in defense of his clients cause. /hose %ho perform thatdut %ith diligence and candor not onl safeguard the interestsof the client( but also serve the ends of ustice.

6f respondent believed that he %ill not be able to representcomplainant effectivel because of %hat the latter has done tohis famil ( then he should have %ithdra%n his services as ala% er. ;ad it not been for complainant&s insistence( his labor case %ould have forever remained dormant. /he fact thatrespondent is retained as the la% er of the complainant( he %asdut bound to give his best service. ;is failure to do soconstitutes an infringement of his oath.

alisa vs.)auricio !r.

At bar is a motion for reconsideration of our ecision dated April 22(2005 finding Att . )elanio < 7atas < )auricio( !r.( respondent( guilt of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penaltof suspension from the practice of la% for a period of si@ "4# months.

>aleriana 7. alisa ( complainant( engaged respondent&s services ascounsel in Civil Case pending before the )unicipal /rial Court( =ranch1( =inangonan( i8al. ot%ithstanding his receipt o" documents andattorne !s "ees in the total amount o" *56, . "romcomplainant, respondent never rendered legal services "or her . Asa result( she terminated the attorne -client relationship and demandedthe return of her mone and documents( but respondent refused.

nvestigating Commissioner $ dia A. avarro of the 6ntegrated =ar of the Philippines "6=P# Commission on =ar iscipline( found that


9/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

immediatel #e returned to the client on demand. < Per records( complainant made repeated demands( but respondentis et to return t he mone .

Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified documentarevidence in Civil Case o. 00-0++( %ill it be sufficient toe@onerate respondentO 9e believe not. 4irst ( Canon 1* outlinesthe procedure in dealing %ith clients %ho perpetrated fraud in thecourse of a legal proceeding. Consistent %ith its mandate that ala% er shall represent his client %ith 8eal and onl %ithin thebounds of the la%( ule 1*.02 of the same Canon specificallprovides

Rule 18. 2 A la% er %ho has received information thathis clients has( in the course of the representation(perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal( shallpromptl call upon the client to recti" the same ( and"ailing which he shall terminate the relationship withsuch client in accordance with the Rules o" ourt .

As a la% er( respondent is e@pected to :no% this ule. 6nsteadof inaction( he should have confronted complainant and as: her to rectif her fraudulent representation. 6f complainant refuses(then he should terminate his relationship %ith her.

Cueto vs.!imene8( !r.

'otarial services for50,000 !hen 3E2failed to issueremaining balance in

cheBue, attorney filed for 73CC

=efore us is a complaint1 for disciplinar action against Att . !ose!imene8( !r. filed b ngr. Ale@ =. Cueto %ith the 6ntegrated =ar of thePhilippines "6=P#( Commission on =ar iscipline.

ngr. Ale@ Cueto alleged that sometime in 'ctober 1*** he engagedthe services of respondent as notar public( the latter being the father of the o%ner of the building sub ect of the Construction Agreement2 tobe notari8ed. ;e %as then accompanied b a certain >al ivera( thebuilding administrator of respondent&s son !ose !imene8 666.

After notari8ing the agreement( respondent demanded P50(000 asnotarial fee. espite his surprise as to the cost of the notarial service(complainant informed respondent that he onl had P30(000 in cash.

espondent persuaded complainant to pa the P30(000 and to issue achec: for the remaining P20(000. =eing unfamiliar %ith the cost of notarial services( complainant paid all his cash.

,ubse uentl ( Att . !imene8 lodged a complaint for violation of =P 22against Cueto before the Cit Prosecutor&s 'ffice in Angeles Cit . /hecriminal case %as tried in the )etropolitan /rial Court of Angeles Cit (=ranch 6.

W Nrespondent

violated*R

Des. 6=P commission on bar discipline found him guilt of violating Canon 20( ule 20.+ of the code of professionalresponsibilit

Canon 20 a la% er shall charge onl fair and reasonable fees20.0+ A la% er shall avoid controversies %ith clientsconcerning his compensation and shall resort to udicial actiononl to prevent imposition( in ustice or fraud.

espondent&s conduct of filing a case for violation of =P 22 %as

improper. /here %as clearl no imposition( in ustice or fraudobtaining the case to ustif the legal action made b therespondent.

Complainant has alread paid more than half of the respondent&sfee and the reason %h he cannot pa for the remaining balanceis because of the respondent&s son failure to pa for his servicesrendered( %hich clearl e@plains %h complainant ran short of fund.

/here %as clearl no imposition( in ustice or fraud obtaining inthis case to ustif the legal action ta:en b respondent. As borneout b the records( complainant Cueto had alread paid morethan half of respondent&s fee. Although %e ac:no%ledge that


10/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

ever la% er must be paid %hat is due to him( he must never resort to udicial action to recover his fees( in a manner thatdetracts from the dignit of the profession. P 6)A

Anglo vs.>alencia

Administrative case filed b Anglo charging respondent attorne s of violating the Code of Professional esponsibilit "CP #( specificall therule against conflict of interest.Complainant 9ilfredo Anglo availed the services of the la% firm>alencia $a% 'ffice for 2 consolidated labor cases %here Anglo asrespondent.

Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the la% firm of therespondents( for labor cases. 0tt . ionela ( a partner of the la% firm(%as assigned to represent complainant. /he labor cases %ereterminated upon the agreement of both parties.

A criminal case for ualified theft %as filed against Anglo and his %ifeb F > Farms( represented b the la% firm b a certain ichael9illacorta ( %hich handled complainantNs labor cases. Aggrieved(complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents( allegingthat the violated the rule on conflict of interest.

espondent admitted that the indeed operated under the name>alencia $a% 'ffice( but e@plained that their association is not a formalpartnership( but one that is sub ect to certain entere8 vs. Complaint filed b complainants li8a >. >entere8( enaro de >era(6nocencia >. amire8( Pacita >. )ills( Antonina >. Palma and amon

9hether therespondent

/hereafter( the 6=P =oard of overnors passed esolutionapproving Q adopting the recommendation of the 6nvestigating


11/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

Cosme de >era against respondent Att . odrigo . Cosme( charging the latter %ith Abandonment( ross egligence and ereliction of ut .

Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Casefor eclaration of '%nership %ith amages filed before the )/CPangasinan. espondent represented the complainants( %ho %eredefendants in said case. /he )/C ruled against the complainants.

Complainants alleged that the directed the respondent to either file a)otion for econsideration or a otice of Appeal( but respondent failedor refused to do so. /he 15-da period %ithin %hich to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration e@pired on 1 )arch 200+. Complainant

lisa >. >entere8 %as constrained to contract another la% er toprepare the )otion for econsideration %hich %as filed on 1* )arch200+. 6t must be stressed that the said motion %as signed bcomplainant lisa >. >entere8 herself as the said la% er did not enter his appearance. ) %as denied.

/%o months after respondent received a cop of the ecision( the

respondent filed his otice of etirement of Counsel %ith the )/C.Feeling aggrieved b respondents actuations( complainants filed theinstant administrative complaint against him. 6n his Ans%er( respondentdenied the claim that the "complainants# directed him to file an appealor a motion for reconsideration thereof. For his defense( respondentaverred that ,alvador amire8 "the son of one of the complainants(6nocencia >. amire8#( informed him that he K%asL %ithdra%ing thecase from the respondent because he alread engaged another la% er to ta:e over the case( so respondent gave the records of the case tohim.

espondent further alleged that the said )otion for econsideration%as alread prepared b another la% er. ;e denied being furnished acop of the )otion for econsideration allegedl prepared and filed banother la% er engaged b complainant lisa >. >entere8 and that he%as served %ith a cop of the denial of the said )otion b the )/C.

committedculpable

negligence inhandling

complainantscase( as

%ould%arrant

disciplinaraction

Commissioner( thus( considering that espondent is guilt of gross negligence( Att . odrigo Cosme is hereb )$)*+N +"rom the practice o" law "or three 3/ months . /he Courtsustained the findings and recommendation of the 6=P =oard of

overnors.

o la% er is obliged to advocate for ever person %ho ma %ishto become his client( but once he agrees to ta:e up the cause of a client( the law er owes "idelit to such cause and must #emind"ul o" the trust and con"idence reposed in him . Amongthe fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorne%ho underta:es an action impliedl stipulates to carr it to itstermination( that is( until the case becomes final and e@ecutor . Alaw er is not at li#ert to a#andon his client and withdrawhis services without reasona#le cause and onl upon noticeappropriate in the circumstances.

After having received a cop of the )/C ecision( respondentdid not #other to "ile a otion "or Reconsideration or a notice

of appeal %ith the proper courts. /hus( complainants %erecompelled to engage the services of a ne% counsel. /he Courtcannot accept respondent&s defense that he had alread%ithdra%n from the case t%o da s after his receipt of the )/C

ecision and that he had allegedl communicated this%ithdra%al to ,alvador amire8( son of one of the hereincomplainants( 6nocencia amire8. 6t is an apparent attempt onthe part o" respondent to wash his hands o" an lia#ilit "or "ailing to pursue an o" the availa#le remedies tocomplainants.

9hat constitute good cause "or the withdrawal o" services# the counsel are identi"ied under Rule 22. 1, anon 22 of the Code of Professional esponsibilit ( %hich is provided inCA ' 22( ule 22.01 %hich gave the follo%ing circumstances%here a la% er ma 96/; A9 his services.

/he instant case does not "all under an o" the groundsa"orementioned . either can the circumstances of this case beconsidered analogous to the grounds thus e@plicitl enumerated.Contrar to respondent&s contention( his pro"essional relationsas a law er with his clients are not terminated # the simpleturnover o" the records o" the case to his clients .

espondent&s defense completel crumbles in face of the factthat ,alvador amire8 is not even a part in Civil Case.

Assuming( nevertheless( that respondent %as ustified in


12/12

ALYSSA CABALANG

%ithdra%ing his services( he, however, cannot :ust do so andleave complainants in the cold, unprotected . /he la% er hasno right to presume that his petition for %ithdra%al %ill begranted b the court. 7ntil his %ithdra%al shall have beenapproved( the la% er remains counsel of record %ho is e@pectedb his clients( as %ell as b the court( to do %hat the interests of his clients re uire.

case digest ethics chap4

Documents