ethics-chap4cpr.docx (1)

7/26/2019 Ethics-Chap4CPR.docx (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethics-chap4cprdocx-1 1/9

Ethics : Chapter 4, Code of Professional Responsibility

CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING

Francisco vs.Portugal- Mikko

Ramos vs.Dajoyag Jr.- Kalalo

ArellanoUnivesity vs.Mijares III- Juan

Quiambao vs.Bamba

- Fonts

Navarro vs.Solidum, Jr.- Tin

On 4 April 2006, respondent Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr. signed a retainer agreement with Hilda S. Presbitero to follow up the release of the payment for the latter’s 2.7-hectare property locatedin Bacolod whichwas the subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

In May 2006, Presbitero’s daughter, Ma. Theresa P. Yulo (Yulo), also engaged respondent’s services to handle the registration of her 18.85-hectare lot located in Nasud-ong, Caradio-an, Himamaylan, Negros. Yulo convinced her sister, Navarro, to finance the expenses for the registration of the property.

Respondent obtained P200,000 from Navarro for the registration expenses. Navarro later learned that the registration decree over the property was already issued in the name of one Teodoro Yulo.

On 25 May 2006, respondent obtained a loan of P1,000,000 fromNavarro to finance his sugar trading business. Respondent and Navarro executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They also agreed that respondent shall issue postdated checks to cover the principal amount of the loan as well as the interest thereon. In June 2006,respondent obtainedan additionalloan of P1,000,000 from Navarro,coveredby a second MOAwith thesame terms and conditions as the first MOA.

At the same time, respondent obtained a loan ofP1,000,000 from Presbitero

covered by a third MOA, except that the real estate mortgage was over a 263-square-meter property located in Barangay Taculing, Bacolod City.

whether

respondent

violated the

Code of

Professional

Responsibili

ty.

YES

Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provide:

CANON 16. - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL

MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY

COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property

collected or received for or from the client.

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his

client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or

property collected or received for or from his client. Navarro, who

financed the registration of Yulo’s 18.85-hectare lot, claimed that

respondent received P265,000 from her. Respondent countered that

P105,000 was paid for real estate taxes but he could not present any

receipt to prove his claim. Respondent also claimed that he paid



Respondent sent Presbitero postdated checks. Respondent paid the loan interest for the first few months. He was able to pay complainants a total of P900,000. Thereafter, he failed to pay either the principal amount or the interest thereon.

In September 2006, the checks issued by respondent to complainants could no longer benegotiatedbecausethe accountsagainstwhich theywere drawn were already closed. When complainants called respondent’s attention, he promised to pay the agreed interest for September and October 2006 but

asked for a reduction of the interest to 7% for the succeeding months.

Complainants then filed petitions for thejudicialforeclosureof the mortgages

executed by respondent in their favor. Respondent countered that the 10%

monthly interest on the loan was usuriousand illegal.Complainantsalso filed

cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against respondent.

After conducting a hearing and considering the position papers submitted by the parties, the IBP-CBD found that respondent violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he failed to properly account for the various funds he received from complainants and violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits borrowing money from a client unless theclient’sinterestis fullyprotected or the client is given independent advice.

P70,000 to the surveyor but the receipt was only for P15,000.

Respondent claimed that he paid P50,000 for filing fee, publication

fee, and other expenses but again, he could not substantiate his

claims with any receipt

Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 16.04. - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client

unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the

case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to

a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance

necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

Here, respondent does not deny that he borrowed P1,000,000 from

his client Presbitero. At the time he secured the loan, respondent

was already the retained counsel of Presbitero.

While respondent’s loan from Presbitero was secured by a MOA,

postdated checks and real estate mortgage, it turned out that

respondent misrepresented the value of the property he mortgaged

and that the checks he issued were not drawn from his account but

from that of his son.

the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law effective

immediately upon his receipt of this Decision.

Penilla vs. AlcidJr.- Kathy

Complainant Julian Penilla entered into an agreement with SpousesRey and Evelyn Garin (the spouses) for the repair of his Volkswagenautomobile. Despite full payment, the spouses defaulted in theirobligation. Thus, complainant decided to file a case for breach ofcontract against the spouses where he engaged the services ofrespondent as counsel.This prompted Julian to hire respondent Atty.

Alcid, and gave him P30,000 as attorneys fees and P10,000 as filingfees. Atty. Alcid sent a demand letter, but the shop failed to return thepayment. He filed an estafa case before the Quezon City ProsecutorsOffice, which was then dismissed. He filed a motion for reconsideration.This was denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option

of filing a case for specific performance. Plaintiff gave another P10,000for the filing fee. Despite repeated attempts, plaintiff failed to see

isrespondentguilty ofgrossnegligence?

yes.

Complainant correctly alleged that respondent violated his oath

under Canon 18 to "serve his client with competence and

diligence" when respondent filed a criminal case for estafa when

the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil

case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for

estafa was dismissed, respondent committed another similar

blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and

damages before the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative

prayer for the payment of damages, should have been filed with



respondent Atty Alcid again. He learned that the case for specificperformance was dismissed. He also found out that the filing fee wasonly P2,440 and not P10,000, as earlier stated by Quintin. Julian filedbefore the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on BarDiscipline (IBP-CBD) an administrative case against Quintin for grossnegligence.

the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over

complainant’s claim which amounts to only P36,000.

Respondent’s negligence under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 is also

beyond contention. A client pays his lawyer hard-earned money

as professional fees. In return, "[e]very case a lawyer accepts

deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its

importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Rule

18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer

not to ‘neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence

in connection therewith shall render him liable.’ He must

constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or

nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Similarly, under

Rule 18.04, a lawyer has the duty to apprise his client of the

status and developments of the case and all other information

relevant thereto. He must be consistently mindful of his obligation

to respond promptly should there be queries or requests for

information from the client.In the case at bar, respondent explained that he failed to update

complainant of the status of the cases he filed because their time

did not always coincide. The excuse proffered by respondent is

too lame and flimsy to be given credit. Respondent himself

admitted that he had notice that complainant had visited his office

many times. Yet, despite the efforts exerted and the vigilance

exhibited by complainant, respondent neglected and failed to

fulfill his obligation under Rules 18.03 and 18.04 to keep his client

informed of the status of his case and to respond within a

reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

Pitcher vs.Gagate- Kwesi

Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher (Complainant) claims to be the legal wifeof the deceased David B. Pitcher who owns 40% of the shareholdings inConsulting Edge, Inc. In order to settle the affairs of her deceased husband,she engaged the services of the Atty. Rustico B. Gagate(Respondent) and metwith Katherine Moscoso Bantegui, a major stockholder of Consulting Edge.Prior to the scheduled 2nd meeting within the company premises respondentpersuaded complainant to put a paper seal on the door of the said premises,assuring her that the same was legal. This caused disappointment in the partof Bantegui who then impelled Complainant and Respondent to just leave the

WONrespondentviolated theCode ofProfessionalResponsibility.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between alawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Inthis regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful oftheir cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence inhandling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at alltimes a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention,skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance andwhether he accepts it for a fee or for free. To this end, he is enjoined toemploy only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. These



matter for the court to settle, then asked them to leave, locked the office andrefused to give them a duplicate key.

Respondent then without consent from Bantegui, caused the change in thelock of the Consulting Edge Office Door, which prevented the operation of thecompany. This prompted Bantegui to file a criminal complaint for gravecoercion against complainant and respondent. Respondent advisedcomplainant to file criminal and civil cases against Banteguie. They entered ina memorandum of agreement, whereby respondent undertook the filing of

the cases for which Complainant paid respondent the amount of 150K PHP asacceptance fee and committed to pay 1k php for every court hearing.Upon finding of probable cause to the charges of grave coercion againstcomplainant and respondent and the filing of the corresponding informationbefore MTC Makati branch 63. A warrant of arrest was issued against them,then Respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he filed thenecessary motions in court. However respondent abandoned complainantwhile the grave coercion case is pending and stopped all communication anddespite diligent efforts of Complainant to reach respondent she failed.

She filed an administrative case against respondent at the IBP commission onBar Discipline, respondent failed to answer complaint who also failed toappear in the mandatory conference which was reset twice due to respondent

absence while the last notice sent was unserved because the respondent hasmoved out. The IBP investigating Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr.recommended in his report for respondents suspension of 6years, which theIBP board of Governors adopted and approved finding the same to be fullysupported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules. Thecase was later referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation andrecommended for 3 years suspension for the 6 months suspension wasdeemed insufficient. and the return of 150k php received as acceptance fee.The court considering the superior degree of the prejudice caused tocomplainant, sustains the OBC’s recommendation.

principles are embodied in Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule19.01 of Canon 19.

WHEREFORE respondent Atty. Rustico B. Gagate is found guilty of violatingCanon 17 Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Codeof Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for a period of three 3) years, effective upon the finalityof this Decision, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same orsimilar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Further, respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Maria CristinaZabaljauregui Pitcher the P150,000.00 acceptance fee he received fromthe latter within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Decision. Failureto comply with the foregoing directive will warrant the imposition of amore severe penalty.

Voluntad-Ramir

ez vs. Bautista- Grace

1. On 25 November 2002, complainant engaged the legalservicesof

respondent to file a complaint against complainant’s siblings for encroachment of her right of way.

2. For his legal services, respondent demanded P 15,000 as acceptance

fee, plus P 1,000 per court appearance. Complainant then paid respondent the P 15,000 acceptance fee.

3. On 29 May 2003, or sixmonths aftershe hiredrespondent, complainant

severed the legal services of respondent because respondent failed to file

a complaint within a reasonable period of time as requested by

complainant and during the six monthsthat elapsed, respondentonly sent

a letter to the City Engineer’s Office in Navotas City concerning her

complaint.

4.

On 8 March 2004,complainantsent a letterto respondent,reiteratingthat

she was terminatingthe services of respondent and that

shewasaskingforthe

Whether

respondent isguilty of

negligence in

handling the

case of

complainant.

Respondent breached his duty to serve his client with competence and

diligence. Respondent is also guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a

legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith

shall render him liable." Once a lawyer receives the acceptancefee for hislegal

services, he is expected to serve hisclient withcompetence, andto attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion.

Once heagreesto take upthe causeof [his] client,thelawyer owes fidelityto

such cause and must always be mindfulof the trustand confidencereposed

in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and

champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.

Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm

zeal in the maintenanceanddefense ofhis client’srights, andthe exertion of

his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld

from his client, save by the rules of the law, legally applied. This simply

means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and



refund of P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee.

5. Respondent failed to refund the P 14,000, prompting complainant to file

on 10 May 2005 her complaint dated 29 March 2005 with the Office of the Bar

Confidant of the Supreme Court. Complainantcharged respondent with violation

of Canon 18, Rule 18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, violation of the lawyer’s oath, grave misconduct, and

conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public.

Respondent’s Contention:· Complainant initially wanted him to file an injunction case against her

siblings but later changed her mind when she was apprised of the expenses

involved. Respondent then advised complainant that since her case involves

family members, earnest efforts toward a compromise should be made in

accordance with Article 222 of the Civil Code and that since the parties reside in

the same barangay, the case must be referred to the barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code.·

Acceptance fee is non-refundable because it covers the time and cost of

research made immediately before and after acceptance of the case. The

acceptance fee also pays for the office supplies used for the case.

·

He did not ignore complainant’s request for a refund. Respondentclaims

that he sent a letter dated 17 March 2004, which stated that although it is their

law firm’s policynot to entertain requests forrefund of acceptance fee,they were

willing to grant her a fifty percent (50%) discount and for complainantto contact

them for her refund.

defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his

lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

The Court finds Atty. Rosario B. Bautista GUILTY of violating Canon 18 and

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibilityand he is ADMONISHED to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duty to hisclients. Atty. Bautista is ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant P 14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee.

Gone vs. GA- Kat

In 1989, Patricio Gone filed against Atty. Macario Ga before the (IBP)complaint for disciplinary action. The complaint was due to Atty. Gas failure toreconstitute or turn over the records of the case in his possession. Atty. Ga ishis counsel in NLRC Case which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and waselevated to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

On 13 December 1983, the NLRC building in Intramuros, Manila was burnedand among the records destroyed was his appealed case. However, Gonereported that as early as 8 March 1984, Atty. Ga had obtained a certificationfrom the NLRC that the records were burned, yet did not do anything to to

reconstitute the records of the appealed case.

Complainant allegedly sent a letter to Atty. Ga requesting him toreturn the records of the case in his possession.

Atty. Ga averred that had it not been for the instant complaint, hewould not have, as he never, heard from complainant Gone since 1984. Whathe was aware of was the latter’s abandonment of his family way back in 1978.Complainant’s wife is the relative of Atty. Ga, being the daughter of his firstcousin.

On 16 February 1999, Commissioner Gonzales-delos Reyes, IBPCommission on Bar Discipline, issued an Order directing respondent Ga to file

his answer on the complaint

WON Atty. Gawas censuredfor violationof Rule 18.03,Canon 18 ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility?

Yes.

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shallnot neglecta legal matter entrustedto him,and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04.A lawyer shallkeeptheclient informedof thestatusof hiscase and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.

Respondent Atty. Gabreachedtheseduties whenhe failed to reconstitute

orturnoverthe records ofthe case tohis client, hereincomplainant Gone. His negligence manifests lack of competence and diligence required of every lawyer. His failure to comply with the request of his client was a gross betrayal of his fiduciaryduty anda breach of thetrust reposed upon him by his client.

The moment he agreed to handle the case, he was bound to give it his utmost attention, skill and competence. Public interest requires that he exerts his best efforts and all his learning and ability in defense of his clients cause. Those who perform that dutywith diligenceand candor not only safeguard the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of

justice.[16] They do honor to the bar and help maintain the communitys

respect for the legal profession.[17]



On 14 February 2007, Commissioner Marilyn S. Guzman, IBPCommission on Bar Discipline, submitted her report recommending thatrespondent Atty. Ga be censured for violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of theCode of Professional Responsibility

If respondent believed that he will not be able to representcomplainant effectively because of what the latter hasdone to his family, then he should have withdrawn hisservices as a lawyer. Had it not been for complainant’sinsistence, his labor case would have forever remaineddormant. The fact that respondent is retained as the lawyerof the complainant, he was duty bound to give his bestservice. His failure to do so constitutes an infringement ofhis oath.

Also, Atty.Ga’s disregard of the IBP Commission on Bar Disciplinesdirective for him to reconstitute and turn over the records of the case tocomplainant is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespectfor the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of alawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey Court orders andprocesses

Decision: warningDalisay vs.Mauricio Jr.- Mir

Complainant:ValerianaDalisay

Respondent:Atty. MelanioMauricio Jr.

Respondent is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing uponhim the penalty of suspension for 6 months. He then filed a Motion forreconsideration.

Atty. Mauricio received the documents from the complainant and atty. Fees.65k all in all. But Respondent never rendered any legal services for her.

Respondent later on learned that the tax declarations and title submitted bythe complainant are not official records. Respondent now filed a swornaffidavit against complainant for violating Art. 172 and 172 and Art 182 of therevised penal code.

Won his MRwill prosper

No.As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule (Rule 19.02).Instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her torectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then heshould terminate his relationship with her

The pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long aftercomplainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was aresult of his active search for justification of his negligence in Civil Case no.00-044.

As a matter of fact, he verified the authenticity of complainant’s title onlyafter the “news of his suspension spread in the legal community”.

Cueto vs.Jimenez, Jr.- Jeff

Complainant:

Engr. Alex Cueto

Respondent:

Atty. Jose

Jimenez

Complainant engaged the notarization services of the Respondent, the latterbeing the father of the owner of the building subject to construction beingnotarized.

Atty. Jimenez notarized the agreement and demanded P50,000 for thenotarization services. Engr. Cueto informed that he could provide onlyP30,000 in cash, Atty. Jimenez persuaded the former to pay the remaining incheck.

Engr. Cueto informed Atty. Jimenez not to deposit the check due to lack of

fund by reason of the latter’s son failure to pay the services rendered by Engr.Cueto.

Whether orNot Atty.Jimenezviolated theCode ofProfessionalResponsibility

Yes. IBP commission on bar discipline found him guilty of violating Canon20, Rule 20.4 of the code of professional responsibility

Canon 20 – a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees

20.04 – A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his

compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,

injustice or fraud.

Respondent’s conduct of filing a case for violation of BP 22 was improper.There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining the case to

justify the legal action made by the respondent.



Atty. Jimenez still deposited the check but was dishonored. Meanwhile thecheck issued by the son of Atty. Jimenez was also dishonored due to being aclosed account.

Atty. Jimenez filed a criminal case for violating BP 22 against Engr. Cueto,while Engr. Cueto filed an administrative case for violating the code ofprofessional responsibility.

Complainant has already paid more than half of the respondent’s fee andthe reason why he cannot pay for the remaining balance is because of therespondent’s son failure to pay for his services rendered, which clearlyexplains why complainant ran short of fund.

Moreover, the complainants action in informing the respondent not todeposit such check for reason of lack of funds was explicitly shows that heis willing to pay but ran short of cash. Respondent therefore should havebeen more tolerant of the delay incurred by complainant Cueto.

Anglo vs.Valencia- Abi

Complainant:WILFREDOANGLO;Respondents:Atty. Jose Ma. VALENCIA, Atty.Jose Ma.

CIOCON, Atty.Philip DABAO,Atty. LilyUY-VALENCIA,Atty. Joey DELA PAZ, Atty. Cris DIONELA, Atty.RaymundoPANDAN JR.,Atty. RodneyRUBICA, Atty.Wilfred RamonPEÑALOSA

Summary:Administrativecase filedby Anglocharging respondentattorneys of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically the rule against conflict of interest.

Facts:I. Complainant Wilfredo Anglo availed the services of the law firm Valencia-Ciocon-Dabao-Valencia-Dela Paz- Dionela-Pandan-Rubica Law Office (law firm), for 2 consolidated labor cases where Anglo as respondent.

-Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent Anglo;-The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of the

parties.II. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against Anglo and his wife by FEVE Farms, Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta.

-Villacorta was represented by the law firm which handled Anglo’s labor cases.

III. Aggrieved, Anglo filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR

Whether ornot the

respondentsare guilty ofrepresenting

conflictinginterests inviolation of

the pertinentprovisions of

the CPR.

Yes.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR provide:CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALLOBSERVE CANDOR,FAIRNESSAND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.X X XRULE 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.X X XCANON 21 – A LAWYER SHALLPRESERVE THE CONFIDENCESAND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS

TERMINATED.

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalfof oneclient,it isthe lawyer’sdutyto fightfor anissueor claim, but it is his duty to opposeit fortheotherclient”. Inbrief, ifhe arguesforone client, this argument will be oppose by him when he argues forthe other client. Also, there is conflict of interests “if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him” and also “whether he will be called upon in his new relationto useagainsthis first client any knowledge acquired through their connection”.Another test of theinconsistencyof interestsis “whetherthe acceptance of a newrelation

will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.”

As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.

In this case,the Courtconcurswith theIBP’s conclusions thatrespondents represented conflicting interests and musttherefore be heldliable.As the records bear out, respondents’ law firm was engaged and, thus, represented complainant in the labor cases instituted against him. However, after the termination thereof, the law firm agreedto represent

a new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of a criminalcase forqualifiedtheft against complainant, its formerclient,and hiswife. As theCourt observes,



the law firm’s unethical acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to organize and implement a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to its handling lawyersto the end of, among others, ensuring that every engagement itaccepts stands clear of any potential conflict of interest. As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective, assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the conflict of interest rule. This lack of coordination, as respondents’ law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably

renders its clients’ secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the lawyer-client relationship’s primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence. Had such system been institutionalized, all of its members, Atty. Dionela included, would have been wary of the above-mentioned conflict, thereby impelling the firm to decline FEVE Farms’ subsequent engagement.

Thus, for this shortcoming, herein respondents, as the charged members of the law firm, ought to be administratively sanctioned. As such, all of them aremeted withthe samepenaltyof reprimand, witha sternwarning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.

Venterez vs.Cosme- Aly

Complaint filed by complainants Eliza V. Venterez, Genaro de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon de Vera against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme, charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty.

Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case for Declaration of Ownership with Damages filed before the MTC Pangasinan. Respondent represented the complainants, who were defendants in said case. The MTC ruled against the complainants.

Complainants alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Motion for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so. The 15-day period within which to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration expired on 18 March 2004.

Complainant Elisa V. Venterez was constrained to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion for Reconsideration which was filed on 19 March 2004. It must be stressed that the said motion was signed by complainant Elisa V. Venterez herself as the said lawyer did not enter his appearance. MR was denied.

Two months after respondent received a copy of the Decision, the respondent filed his Notice of Retirement of Counsel with the MTC. Feeling aggrieved by respondents actuations, complainants filed the instant administrative complaint against him. In his Answer, respondent denied the claim that they (complainants) directed him to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration thereof. For his defense, respondent averred that Salvador Ramirez (the son of one of the complainants, Inocencia V. Ramirez), informed him that he [was] withdrawing the case from the respondent because he already engaged another lawyer to take over the case, so respondent gave the

Whether therespondentcommitted

culpablenegligencein handling

complainants case, as

wouldwarrant

disciplinaryaction

Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution approving & adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus, considering that Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, Atty. Rodrigo Cosme is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. The Court sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A

lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.

After having received a copy of the MTC Decision, respondent did not bother to file a Motion for Reconsideration or a notice of appeal with the proper courts. Thus, complainants were compelled to engage the services of a new counsel. The Court cannot accept respondent’s defense that he had already withdrawn from the case two days after his receipt of the MTC Decision and that he had allegedly communicated this withdrawal to Salvador Ramirez, son of one of the herein complainants, Inocencia Ramirez. It is an apparent attempt on the part of respondent to wash his hands of any liability for failing to pursue any of the available remedies to complainants.



records of the case to him.

Respondent further alleged that the said Motion for Reconsideration was already prepared by another lawyer. He denied being furnished a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration allegedly prepared and filed by another lawyer engaged by complainant Elisa V. Venterez and that he was served with a copy of the denial of the said Motion by the MTC.

What

constitute good cause for the withdrawal of services by the counsel are identified under Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which is provided in CANON 22, Rule 22.01 which gave the following circumstances where a lawyer may WITHDRAW his services.

The

instant case does not fall under any of the grounds aforementioned. Neither can the circumstances of this case be considered analogous to the grounds thus explicitly enumerated. Contrary to respondent’s contention,

his professional relations as a lawyer with his clients are not terminated by the simple turnover of the records of the case to his clients. Respondent’s defense completely crumbles in face of the fact that Salvador Ramirez is not even a party in Civil Case.

Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in withdrawing his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainants in the cold, unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his clients require.

ethics-chap4cpr.docx (1)

Documents