7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

1/84

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 3455. April 14, 1998]

ARSENIO A. VILLAFUERTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. DANTE H. CORTEZ, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

VITUG,J.:

Feeling aggrieved by what he perceives to be a neglect in the handling of his cases by respondent

lawyer, despite the latter's receipt of P1,750.00 acceptance and retainer fees, complainant Arsenio A.

Villafuerte seeks, in the instant proceedings, the disbarment of Atty. Dante H. Cortez.

From the records of the case and the Report submitted by the Commission on Bar Discipline ("CBD") of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"), it would appear that sometime in January 1987,

complainant, upon the referral of Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag, went to the office of respondent lawyer to

discuss his case for "reconveyance" (Civil Case No. 83-18877). During their initial meeting, complainanttried to reconstruct before respondent lawyer the incidents of the case merely from memory prompting

the latter to ask complainant to instead return at another time with the records of the case. On 30

January 1987, complainant again saw respondent but still sans the records. Complainant requested

respondent to accept the case, paying to the latter the sum of P1,750.00 representing the acceptance

fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer fee for January 1987. Respondent averred that he accepted the

money with much reluctance and only upon the condition that complainant would get the records of the

case from, as well as secure the withdrawal of appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel of

complainant. Allegedly, complainant never showed up thereafter until November 1989 when he went

to the office of respondent lawyer but only to leave a copy of a writ of execution in Civil Case No.

062160-CV, a case for ejectment, which, according to respondent, was never priorly mentioned to him

by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he had never entered his appearance in the aforenumbered

case.

In its report, IBP-CBD concluded that the facts established would just the same indicate sufficiently a

case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent. The CBD rejected the excuse proffered by respondent

that the non-receipt of the records of the case justified his failure to represent complainant. The IBP-

CBD, through Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo, recommended to the IBP Board of Governors the

suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three months with a warning that a repetition of

similar acts could be dealt with more severely than a mere 3-month suspension.

On 30 August 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-96-191 which -

"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and

Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, hereinmade part of this

Resolution/Decision as Annex `A;' and, finding the recommendation therein to be fully supported by the

evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty. Dante Cortez is hereby

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

2/84

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a warning that a repetition of the

acts/omission complained of will be dealt with more severely."i[1]

Both respondent lawyer and complainant filed with the IBP-CBD their respective motions for the

reconsideration of the foregoing resolution.

On 23 August 1997, the Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-97-66 that -

"RESOLVED to CONFIRM Resolution NO. XII-96-191 of the Board of Governors Meeting dated August 30,

1996 SUSPENDING Atty. Dante Cortez from the practice of law for three (3) months with a warning that

repetition of the acts/omission complained of will be dealt with more severely."ii[2]

The Court agrees with the IBP-CBD in its findings and conclusion that respondent lawyer has somehow

been remiss in his responsibilities.

The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship, given the circumstances, has arisen between

respondent and complainant. Respondent lawyer has admitted having received the amount of

P1,750.00, including its nature and purpose, from complainant. His acceptance of the payment

effectively bars him from altogether disclaiming the existence of an attorney-client relationship between

them. It would not matter really whether the money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No.

83-18877 or to include Civil Case No. 062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event, that respondent

lawyer has attended to either of said cases. It would seem that he hardly has exerted any effort to find

out what might have happened to his client's cases. A lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires

him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him.iii[3] He is mandated to

exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code of

Professional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum than when it has stated that a "lawyer

shall serve his client with competence and diligence,"iv[4] decreeing further that he "shall not neglect alegal matter entrusted to him."v[5]

Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without fault himself. He cannot expect his case to be

properly and intelligently handled without listening to his own counsel and extending full cooperation to

him. It is not right for complainant to wait for almost two years and to deal with his lawyer only after

receiving an adverse decision.

All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce the recommended period of suspension of the IBP

from three months to one month.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Dante H. Cortez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of onemonth from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts and other administrative

lapses will be dealt with more severely than presently.

Let a copy of this Resolution be made a part of the personal records of respondent lawyer in the Office

of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and let copies thereof be furnished to the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines and be circulated to all courts.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

3/84

SO ORDERED.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

4/84

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006

MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, Complainants,

vs.

ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA,J.:

Complainants filed before this Court an affidavit-complaint1on 15 August 2003 against Atty. Jaime

Juanito P. Portugal (respondent) for violation of the Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross

negligence. Complainants are related to petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23 entitled SPO1 Ernest C.

Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin v. People of the Philippines, in whose behalf

respondent filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) in the case.

The complaint against respondent originated from his alleged mishandling of the above-mentioned

petition which eventually led to its denial with finality by this Court to the prejudice of petitioners

therein.

The facts are as follows:

On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin(eventually petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23, collectively referred to herein as the accused) were

involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of

another. As a result, Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and

frustrated murder. The accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. After due trial, the Sandiganbayan2

found the accused guilty of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide.

At that juncture, complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused. Respondent

then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but it was denied in a Resolution dated

21 August 2001. Unfazed by the denial, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second

Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration.3

Pending resolutionby the Sandiganbayan, respondent also filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad

Cautelam) on 3 May 2002.

Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone calls they

made to his office. When respondent did not return their phone inquiries, complainants went to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

5/84

respondents last known address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding

address.

More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally verify the

status of the ad cautelam petition as they had neither news from respondent about the case nor

knowledge of his whereabouts. They were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued aResolution4dated 3 July 2002, denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.

Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest5had

already been issued against the accused because respondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown,

did nothing to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

In his Comment,6respondent states that it is of vital significance that the Court notes that he was not

the original counsel of the accused. He only met the accused during the promulgation of the

Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted

homicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be

present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision.

Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the parties. But only because

of his sincere effort and in true spirit of the Lawyers Oath did he file the Motion for Reconsideration.

Though admitting its highly irregular character, respondent also made informal but urgent and personal

representation with the members of the Division of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated the decision

of conviction. He asserts that because of all the efforts he put into the case of the accused, his other

professional obligations were neglected and that all these were done without proper and adequate

remuneration.

As to the ad cautelam petition, respondent maintains that it was filed on time. He stresses that the lastday of filing of the petition was on 3 April 2002 and on that very day, he filed with this Court a Motion

for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review,7seeking an additional thirty (30) days to file the

petition. Subsequently, on 3 May 2002, he filed the petition by registered mail and paid the

corresponding docket fees. Hence, so he concludes, it was filed within the reglementary period.

Soon thereafter, respondent recounted all the "herculean" efforts he made in assisting the accused for

almost a year after the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision. He considered the fact that it was a

case he had just inherited from the original counsel; the effect of his handling the case on his other

equally important professional obligations; the lack of adequate financial consideration for handling the

case; and his plans to travel to the United States to explore further professional opportunities. He then

decided to formally withdraw as counsel for the accused. He wrote a letter to PO3 Rolando Joaquin (PO3

Joaquin), who served as the contact person between respondent and complainants, explaining his

decision to withdraw as their counsel, and attaching the Notice to Withdraw which respondent

instructed the accused to sign and file with the Court. He sent the letter through registered mail but

unfortunately, he could not locate the registry receipt issued for the letter.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt4

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

6/84

Respondent states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged from the case and endorsed the

Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquin for the latter to file with the Court. Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did

not do so, as he was keenly aware that it would be difficult to find a new counsel who would be as

equally accommodating as respondent. Respondent suggests this might have been the reason for the

several calls complainants made to his office.

On 9 February 2004, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

for investigation, report and recommendation.1awph!l.net

The case was assigned to Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid)

who sent notices of hearing to the parties but of the three complainants, only complainant Carlos

Joaquin appeared. Thus, in the mandatory conference held, the other two complainants were declared

as having waived their rights to further participate in the IBP proceedings.8

The parties were directed to file their respective position papers and on 27 May 2005, Commissioner

Villadolid submitted his Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of violation of the Code

of Professional Responsibility9and recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand tosuspension of six (6) months.1awph!l.net10On 12 November 2005, the Board of Directors of the IBP

resolved to adopt and approve Commissioner Villadolids recommendation to find respondent guilty and

specifically to recommend his suspension for six (6) months as penalty.

The only issue to be resolved in the case at bar is, considering all the facts presented, whether

respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23, which

eventually led to the ad cautelam petitions dismissal with finality.

After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds the suspension recommended by

the IBP proper.

In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused, respondent has a higher duty

to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused which stands to

be lost but more importantly, their right to their life and liberty. As held in Regala v. Sandiganbayan:11

Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and duties that

breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate, exacting and

confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason

of necessity and public interest x x x .

It is also the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any otherprofession in society. x x x12

At the onset, the Court takes notice that the ad cautelam petition was actually filed out of time. Though

respondent filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for

Reconsideration with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration, he should have known that a

second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading13and it rests on the sound discretion of the

Sandiganbayan to admit it or not. Thus, in effect, the motion did not toll the reglementary period to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

7/84

appeal. Having failed to do so, the accused had already lost their right to appeal long before respondent

filed his motion for extension. Therefore, respondent cannot now say he filed the ad cautelam petition

on time. Also important to note is the allegation of complainants that the Sandiganbayan denied the

second motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated 7 February 2002. This respondent does not

dispute.

As to respondents conduct in dealing with the accused and complainants, he definitely fell short of the

high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. As

aptly observed by Commissioner Villadolid, respondent had not been quite candid in his dealings with

the accused or complainants. The Court notes that though respondent represented to the accused that

he had changed his office address, still, from the examination of the pleadings14he filed, it can be

gleaned that all of the pleadings have the same mailing address as that known to complainants.

Presumably, at some point, respondents office would have received the Courts Resolution dismissing

the petition. Of course, the prudent step to take in that situation was to at least inform the client of the

adverse resolution since they had constantly called respondents office to check the status of the case.

Even when he knew that complainants had been calling his office, he opted not to return their calls.

Respondent professed an inkling that the several phone calls of complainants may have been about the

letter he sent PO3 Joaquin regarding his desire to be discharged as counsel of the case. However,

though aware of such likelihood, respondent still did not return their calls. Had he done so, he and

complainants could have threshed out all unresolved matters between them.

Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is

presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal

himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should have informed this Court through the

appropriate manifestation that he had already given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go

about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal, as suggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing,

he was negligent in handling the case of the accused.

Certainly, respondent ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the Notice to Withdraw

and not the accused. His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave them instructions

on how to go about respondents withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should have been

respondent who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation.

He should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the case. Without the

presentation of the alleged registry receipt (or the return card, which confirms the receipt of the mail by

the recipient) of the letter he allegedly sent to PO3 Joaquin, the Court cannot lend credence to

respondents naked claim, especially so that complainants have been resolute in their stand that theydid not hear from respondent after the latter had filed the ad cautelam petition. He could relieve

himself of his responsibility as counsel only first by securing the written conformity of the accused and

filing it with the court pursuant to Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.15

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation

at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

8/84

than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is

the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its

conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers right to withdraw

from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the clients written consent or from a good

cause.16

We agree with Commissioner Villadolid that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due

to the gross negligence of respondent. The Court has stressed in Aromin v. Boncavil17that:

Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must

always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with

competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and

devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the

maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of the his utmost learning and ability to

the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This

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

authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with

it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A

lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he

also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community

to the legal profession.18

Respondent has time and again stated that he did all the endeavors he enumerated without adequate

or proper remuneration. However, complainants have sufficiently disputed such claim when they

attached in their position paper filed before the IBP a machine validated deposit slip in the amount of

P15,500.00 for the Metro Bank savings account of one Jaime Portugal with account number

7186509273.19Respondent has neither admitted nor denied having claimed the deposited amount.

The Court also rejects respondents claim that there was no formal engagement between the parties

and that he made all his efforts for the case without adequate and proper consideration. In the words of

then Justice Panganiban (presently Chief Justice) in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta:20

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if

the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a

profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.21

Also to the point is another case where this Court ruled, thus:

A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be

express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney

is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. x x x22

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

9/84

Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to defend, his obligation

embodied in the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility still remains unwavering.

The zeal and the degree of fervor in handling the case should neither diminish nor cease just because of

his perceived insufficiency of remuneration.

Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the shooting incidentthat the accused was engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the accused police officers who had

been convicted of [h]omicide for the salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and [a]ttempted

[h]omicide of Mario C. Macato."23Rule 14.0124of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs

lawyers not to discriminate clients as to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic that it is the

defense counsel that actually branded his own clients as being the culprits that "salvaged" the victims.

Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when

even the Sandiganbayan had not done so.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for six (6) months, the most

severe penalty recommended by Commissioner Villadolid, but did not explain why such penalty was

justified. In a fairly recent case where the lawyer failed to file an appeal brief which resulted to the

dismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court of Appeals, the Court imposed upon the erring lawyer

the penalty of three (3) months suspension.25The Court finds it fit to impose the same in the case at

bar.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three

(3) months. Let a copy of the Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in

the record of respondent.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

10/84

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

11/84

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003]

RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CALLEJO, SR.,J.:

On January 3, 2002, Ruby Mae Barnachea filed a verified complaint for breach of lawyer-client relations

against respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho.

It appears that respondent had not been in the private practice of the law for quite some time.

However, in September 2001, he decided to revive his legal practice with some associates. Complainant

engaged the legal services of respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title

over a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 334411 previously owned by her sister,

Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. The latter sold said property to complainant under an unnotarized deed ofabsolute sale. Complainant drew and issued BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052304 in the amount of

P11,280.00 and BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052305 in the amount of P30,000.00, both dated

September 5, 2001, or the total amount of P41,280.00 for the expenses for said transfer and in payment

for respondents legal services. Respondent enchased the checks.

However, despite the lapse of almost two months, respondent failed to secure title over the property in

favor of complainant. The latter demanded that respondent refund to her the amount of P41,280.00

and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent failed to comply

with said demands. On November 1, 2001, complainant received a letter from respondent informing

her that he had failed to cause the transfer of the property under her name and that he was returningthe documents and title she had entrusted to him and refunding to her the amount of P41,280.00

through his personal check No. DIL 0317787. Said check was drawn against his account with the Bank of

Commerce (Diliman Branch) in the amount of P41,280.00 and was postdated December 1, 2001.

Respondent told complainant that he needed more time to fund the check. However, respondent failed

to fund the check despite the demands of complainant.

In his Answer to the complaint, respondent denied that complainant contracted his legal services.

Although respondent admitted having received the two checks from complainant, he claimed that said

checks were intended to cover actual and incidental expenses for transportation, communication,

representation, necessary services, taxes and fees for the cancellation and transfer of TCT No. 334411under the name of complainant and not for legal services. He asserted that he acted in good faith as

shown by the fact of his return of complainants documents with an explanatory letter and his issuance

of a personal check for P41,280.00 dated December 1, 2001. He insisted that he would not compromise

for such meager amount his personal standing as well as his membership in the legal profession. His

failure to transfer the title of the property under the name of the complainant was caused by his

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

12/84

difficulty in making good the claimed amount, compounded by his affliction with diabetes and the

consequent loss of sight of his right eye.

Respondent further alleged that he was a licensed real estate and insurance broker and had been a

freelance business management consultant. At the same time he engaged in real estate brokering, pre-

need products marketing for Prudential Life, and life insurance underwriting for Insular Life. In 1999, hegave up the practice of his profession as a lawyer and subsequently managed to put up a business

center with fellow insurance underwriters for their common insurance underwriting practice. He

further claimed that sometime in August, 2001, an insurance client introduced complainant as an

insurance prospect to him. In the course of their dealing, complainant intimated to respondent her

willingness to consider respondents insurance proposal provided the latter would help her facilitate the

cancellation and eventual transfer to her name the property covered by TCT No. 334411 in the name of

complainants sister, Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. Respondent agreed to help complainant in the

transfer of the title to her name, with the condition that no diligent study or verification of

complainants documents, nor preparation of any additional document or any application or petition

whatsoever, will be made by respondent. He explained to complainant that his task was merely to gothrough the regular process of presenting the available documents, paying the taxes and fees, and

following up the processing for the cancellation and issuance of the certificate of title. In other words,

respondent offered to complainant services which a non-lawyer familiar with the procedure and the

related offices can perform and provide to the complainant with respect to the transfer of the title of

the property in her name.

Respondent asserted that in the latter part of September 2001, he discovered and became aware for the

first time that the original copy of TCT No. 334411 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City was

destroyed in a fire in Quezon City Hall several years earlier and that complainants copy of the title

needed to be reconstituted before it can be cancelled and transferred. At about the same time, theworking relations of respondent in the business center with his non-lawyer associates had become

difficult and strained, impelling him to sever his business relations with them and cease from to going to

the business center. Consequently, telephone communications between respondent and complainant at

the business center was cut. Communications became much more limited when, apart from the fact

that respondent did not have a landline at his residence, respondents mobile phone was stolen

sometime in October 2001.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) designated Atty. Dennis B. Funa as Commissioner to conduct

a formal investigation of the complaint. Despite several settings, respondent failed to appear and

adduce evidence.

On April 26, 2002, Investigating Commissioner Dennis B. Funa submitted his report and

recommendation stating in part that:

1. Respondent is not able to meet his financial obligations due to financial difficulties, and that

respondent is in good faith in his failure to meet this obligation.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

13/84

2. It is recommended that respondent be ORDERED TO REPAY HIS CLIENT within ninety (90) days from

receipt of this Decision. The principal amount being P41,280.00. Failure to comply with the Order shall

be considered as proof of evident bad faith, and shall be considered in the continuing evaluation of the

case in view of the continued failure to repay his client.

3. Respondent should also be given a WARNING that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely.1[1]

The Investigating Commissioner gave credence to the claim of complainant that she engaged the legal

services of respondent and paid him for his services and that respondent failed in his undertaking and

refund the amount of P41,280.00 to complainant despite her demands and that respondent appeared to

be evading the complainant.

On October 19, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-550 adopting and

approving the Investigating Commissioners recommendation with the additional sanction ofreprimand

for respondent:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report andRecommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this

Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on

record and the applicable laws and rules, with modification. Respondent is hereby reprimanded and

ordered to return the Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty (P41,280.00) Pesos to complainant within

ninety (90) days from receipt of notice.2[2]

While the Court agrees with the Board of Governors that respondent should be meted a disciplinary

sanction, it finds that the penalty of reprimand recommended by the Board of Governors is not

commensurate to the gravity of the wrong committed by respondent. As found by the Investigating

Commissioner, the complainant engaged the legal services of the respondent. As admitted in his letterto the complainant, respondent had just resumed his private practice of law two months before

complainant contracted his services for the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the registration

thereof with the Register of Deeds and the transfer of the title over the property to the complainant:

NOVEMBER 1, 2002

DEAR RUBY,

I AM SORRY I AM RETURNING YOUR DOCUMENTS WITHOUT CHANGES.

I HAD A SERIES OF MONEY PROBLEMS RIGHT AFTER YOU GAVE ME THE TWO CHECKS AND COMING

WITH THE AMOUNTS WITH PERSONAL FUNDS.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

14/84

I WAS REVIVING MY LEGAL PRACTICE ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS WHICH WE MET AND HAD JUST SET UP

THE OFFICE WITH TWO ASSOCIATES WHICH A FEW WEEKS LATER WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS AND

DECIDED TO DISBAND. I WILL HAVE TO REFURBISH MY OFFICE. I AM ISSUING MY PERSONAL CHECK TO

GUARANTEE THE AMOUNT I TOOK. I NEED A LITTLE TIME TO COVER THE AMOUNT. THANKS FOR YOUR

UNDERSTANDING.

(Sgd.) EDWIN.3[3]

Respondents claim that complainant did not retain his legal services flies in the face of his letter to

complainant. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law

has it that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty

in the profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, making him

unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.4[4]

In this case, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking for almost two months. Worse, despite

demands of complainant, he failed to refund the amount of P41,280.00 and to return to complainant

the deed of absolute sale and title over the property. Respondents claim that complainant could not

contact him because he did not have any landline at his residence and that his mobile phone was stolen

in October 2001, is hard to believe. He failed to adduce a morsel of evidence to prove that his

telephone at the business center was cut or that his mobile phone had been stolen. Even then,

respondent could have easily contacted the complainant at her residence or could have written her a

letter informing her that the original copy of TCT No. 324411 in the custody of the Register of Deeds was

burned when the Quezon City Hall was gutted by fire and that there was a need for the reconstitution of

said title. Neither did respondent adduce evidence that he was a life insurance underwriter for Insular

Life or that he had been sick with diabetes and had lost his sight in his right eye. Respondent simply

refused to adduce evidence to prove his allegations in his Answer to the complaint.

The Court is led to believe that respondents failure to cause the transfer of the title of the property

under the name of complainant was due to a financial problem that beset him shortly after he received

the checks from complainant. It can easily be inferred from respondents letter that he used

complainantsmoney to alleviate if not solve his financial woes. What compounded respondents

unethical conduct was his drawing of a personal check and delivering the same to complainant without

sufficient funds in his bank account to cover the check. Even as he promised to fund his account with

the drawee bank, respondent failed to do so when the check became due.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. He

is a trustee to said funds and property.5[5] He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart fromhis own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

15/84

the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title

over real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client

upon demand therefor. The lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to

a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him.6[6] The

conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and

a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.7[7]

In this case, respondent intransigeantly refused to return to the complainant the amount of P41,280.00

which he received for the expenses for the transfer to her of the title of the property and for his

professional fees. His dishonest conduct was compounded by his interjection of flimsy excuses for his

obstinate refusal to refund the amount to complainant.

The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate, exacting and

confidential character.8[8] A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his

dealings and transactions with his clients.9[9] The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an

absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the

interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard

expected of him.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, Respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho is found guilty of violation of

Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law

for One (1) Year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with

more severely. He is DIRECTED to restitute to the complainant the full amount of P41,280.00 within ten

(10) days from notice hereof. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment

of said amount within ten (10) days from said payment. If Respondent fails to restitute the said amount

within the aforesaid period, he shall be meted an additional suspension of three (3) months for every

month or fraction thereof of delay until he shall have paid the said amount in full. In case a subsidiary

penalty of suspension for his failure to restitute the said amount shall be necessary, respondent shall

serve successively the penalty of his one year suspension and the subsidiary penalty. This is without

prejudice to the right of the complainant to institute the appropriate action for the collection of said

amount.

SO ORDERED.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

16/84

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 5804. July 1, 2003]

BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT,

respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

On November 21, 1997, Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D. Ricafort filed an administrative

complaint10[1] with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, against

respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest. They

alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which was the retained counsel of

the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Respondents brother, Aurelio S. Salunat,

was a member of the PPSTA Board which approved respondents engagement as retained counsel of

PPSTA.

Complainants, who are members of the PPSTA, filed an intra-corporate case against its members of the

Board of Directors for the terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1997 before the Securities and Exchange

Commission, which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, and a complaint before the Office of the

Ombudsman, docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-0695, for unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of

real property of the PPSTA. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board

members in the said cases. Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest

because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out

of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of

the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.

Moreover, complainants aver that respondent violated Rule 15.0611[2] of the Code of Professional

Responsibility when he appeared at the meeting of the PPSTA Board and assured its members that he

will win the PPSTA cases.

In his Answer,12[3] respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board

Members for and in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. As a partner in the said law firm, he only

filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency in OMB Case No. 0-97-0695.13[4] On the other hand, SEC

Case No. 05-97-5657 was handled by another partner of the firm, Atty. Agustin V. Agustin. Respondent

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

17/84

claims that it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed the

said cases against members of the PPSTA and its Board.

Respondent pointed out that his relationship to Aurelio S. Salunat was immaterial; and that when he

entered into the retainer contract with the PPSTA Board, he did so, not in his individual capacity, but in

representation of the ASSA Law Firm. He denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA Board in thecase he was handling. He merely assured the Board that the truth will come out and that the case

before the Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, considering that respondents therein

are not public officials, but private employees. Anent the SEC case, respondent alleged that the same

was being handled by the law firm of Atty. Eduardo de Mesa, and not ASSA.

By way of Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent averred that complainant Atty. Ricafort was

himself guilty of gross violation of his oath of office amounting to gross misconduct, malpractice and

unethical conduct for filing trumped-up charges against him and Atty. De Mesa. Thus, he prayed that

the complaint against him be dismissed and, instead, complainant Ricafort be disciplined or disbarred.

The complainant was docketed as CBD Case No. 97-531 and referred to the IBP Commission on BarDiscipline. After investigation, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro recommended that respondent be

suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Board of Governors thereafter adopted

Resolution No. XV-3003-230 dated June 29, 2002, approving the report and recommendation of the

Investigating Commissioner.

Respondent filed with this Court a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Resolution of the IBP Board

of Governors.

The pertinent rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

RULE 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing

parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or

claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this

argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.14[5] This rule covers not only

cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence

has been bestowed or will be used.15[6] Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new

retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any

matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to useagainst his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.16[7] Another test of the

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

18/84

inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation 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.17[8]

In this jurisdiction, a corporations board of directors is understood to be that body which (1) exercises

all powers provided for under the Corporation Code; (2) conducts all business of the corporation; and (3)controls and holds all property of the corporation.18[9] Its members have been characterized as

trustees or directors clothed with a fiduciary character.19[10] It is clearly separate and distinct from the

corporate entity itself.

Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or

negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a

stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation,

to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the

stockholders.20[11] This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a

derivative suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder filing suit for the

corporations behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should be included as a party in the

suit.21[12]

Having thus laid a suitable foundation of the basic legal principles pertaining to derivative suits, we

come now to the threshold question: can a lawyer engaged by a corporation defend members of the

board of the same corporation in a derivative suit? On this issue, the following disquisition is

enlightening:

The possibility for conflict of interest here is universally recognized. Although early cases found joint

representation permissible where no conflict of interest was obvious, the emerging rule is against dual

representation in all derivative actions. Outside counsel must thus be retained to represent one of thedefendants. The cases and ethics opinions differ on whether there must be separate representation

from the outset or merely from the time the corporation seeks to take an active role. Furthermore, this

restriction on dual representation should not be waivable by consent in the usual way; the corporation

should be presumptively incapable of giving valid consent.22[13] (underscoring ours)

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

19/84

In other jurisdictions, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents both the

corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of the

corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual corporate

officials.23[14] The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon us. After due deliberation on the

wisdom of this doctrine, we are sufficiently convinced that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a

corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board of directors in a derivative suitbrought against them. To do so would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is

prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled Philippine Public School

Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers Assn.

(PPSTA), et al., was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the

ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he

appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Clearly,

respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the parties against whom his other

client, the PPSTA, filed suit.

In his Answer, respondent argues that he only represented the Board of Directors in OMB Case No. 0-97-

0695. In the said case, he filed a Manifestation of Extreme Urgency wherein he prayed for the dismissal

of the complaint against his clients, the individual Board Members. By filing the said pleading, he

necessarily entered his appearance therein.24[15] Again, this constituted conflict of interests,

considering that the complaint in the Ombudsman, albeit in the name of the individual members of the

PPSTA, was brought in behalf of and to protect the interest of the corporation.

Therefore, respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Considering however, that this is

his first offense, we find the penalty of suspension, recommended in IBP Resolution No. XV-2002-230

dated June 29, 2002, to be too harsh. Instead, we resolve to admonish respondent to observe a higher

degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests

and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is further

WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

20/84

[A.C. No. 6424. March 4, 2005]

CONSORCIA S. ROLLON, complainant, vs. Atty. CAMILO NARAVAL, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Lawyers owe fidelity to their clients. The latters money or other property coming into the formers

possession should be deemed to be held in trust and should not under any circumstance be commingled

with the lawyers own; much less, used by them. Failure to observe these ethical principles constitutes

professional misconduct and justifies the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

The Case and the Facts

Before us is a letter-complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval, filed by Consorcia S. Rollon with the Davao

City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November 29, 2001. The Affidavit[1]

submitted by complainant alleges the following:

Sometime in October of 2000, I went to the office of Atty. Camilo F. Naraval together with my son,

Freddie Rollon, to seek his assistance in a case filed against me before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities

Branch 6, Davao City entitled Rosita Julaton vs. Consorcia S. Rollon for Collection of Sum of Money with

Prayer for Attachment;

After going over the documents I brought with me pertaining to the said case, Atty. Naraval agreed to

be my lawyer and I was required to pay the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (Php 8,000.00) for the filing

and partial service fee, which amount was paid by me on October 18, 2000, a copy of the Official Receipt

is hereto attached as Annex A to form part hereof;

As per the instruction of Atty. Naraval, my son, Freddie, returned to his office the foll owing week to

make follow-up on said case. However, I was informed later by my son Freddie that Atty. Naraval was

not able to act on my case because the latter was so busy. Even after several follow-ups were made

with Atty. Naraval, still there was no action done on our case;

Sometime in November 29, 2001, I decided to withdraw the amount I paid to Atty. Naraval, because of

the latters failure to comply with our mutual agreement that he will assist me in the above -mentioned

case;

My son Freddie Rollon went to Atty. Naravals office that same day to inform Atty. Naraval of ourdecision to withdraw the amount I have paid and to retrieve my documents pertaining to said case.

Unfortunately, despite our several follow-ups, Atty. Naraval always said that he cannot return the

documents because they were in their house, and that he could not give us back the amount we paid

him (Php 8,000.00) because he has no money;

Having failed to obtain any response, I decided to refer the matter to Atty. Ramon Edison Batac an, IBP

President of Davao City and to Atty. Pedro Castillo, the Commissioner on Bar D[i]scipline;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn1

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

21/84

x x x x x x x x x.

In an Order dated March 12, 2002,[2]the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Director

Victor C. Fernandez, directed respondent to submit his answer to the Complaint. The same directive

was reiterated in the CBDs May 31, 2002 Order[3]issued through Commissioner Jovy C. Bernabe.

Respondent did not file any answer despite his receipt of the Orders.[4]

Not having heard from him despite adequate notice, the CBD proceeded with the investigation ex parte.

Its Order[5]dated November 11, 2002, issued through Commissioner Bernabe, required complainant to

submit her position paper within ten days from receipt thereof, after which the case was to be deemed

submitted for resolution.

The CBD received complainants Position Paper[6]on December 10, 2002.

Report of the Investigating Commissioner

In his Report and Recommendation dated October 16, 2003, Investigating Commissioner Acerey C.

Pacheco recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for

neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The

Report reads in part as follows:

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with

utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and

his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable x x x.

In the case at bar, the deplorable conduct of the respondent in misrepresenting to the complainant

that he will render legal services to her, and after receiving certain amount from the latter as payment

for filing fee and service fee did nothing in return, has caused unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By hisown conduct the respect of the community to the legal profession, of which he swore to protect, has

been tarnished.

x x x x x x x x x

In fact, complainant claimed to have been shortchanged by the respondent when he failed to properly

appraised her of the status of her case which she later on found to have become final and executory.

Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and the complainant have been decided against the

latter and which judgment has long become final and executory. However, despite full knowledge by

the respondent of such finality based on the documents furnished to him, respondent withheld such

vital information and did not properly appraise the complainant. Thus, respondent violated the

mandate in Canon 15 x x x.[7]

IBP Board of Governors Resolution

On February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVI-2004-64 upholding the

above-quoted Report. The Board recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn2

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

22/84

for two (2) years for violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the

restitution of complainants P8,000.

The Courts Ruling

We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.

Respondents Administrative Liability

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish

to become their client.[8]They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are

not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently.[9]But once they agree to handle a case,

attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care

and utmost devotion.[10]

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty

of fidelity to the clients cause.[11]Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence,

skill and competence, regardless of importance.[12]The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly

states:

CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection

therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within areasonable time to the clients request for information.

Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[13]Otherwise,

their clients would be prejudiced. Once lawyers agree to handle a case, they should undertake the task

with dedication and care. If they do any less, then they fail their lawyers oath.[14]

The circumstances of this case indubitably show that after receiving the amount of P8,000 as filing and

partial service fee, respondent failed to render any legal service in relation to the case of complainant.

His continuous inaction despite repeated followups from her reveals his cavalier attitude and appalling

indifference toward his clients cause, in brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Not only that.Despite her repeated demands, he also unjustifiably failed to return to her the files of the case that had

been entrusted to him. To top it all, he kept the money she had likewise entrusted to him.

Furthermore, after going through her papers, respondent should have given her a candid, honest

opinion on the merits and the status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit between Rosita Julaton and

complainant had been decided against the latter. In fact, the judgment had long become final and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn8

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

23/84

executory. But he withheld such vital information from complainant. Instead, he demanded P8,000 as

filing and service fee and thereby gave her hope that her case would be acted upon.

Rule 15.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers give their candid and best

opinion to their clients on the merit or lack of merit of the case, neither overstating nor understating

their evaluation thereof. Knowing whether a case would have some prospect of success is not only afunction, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers.[15]If they find that their clients cause is

defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than to

traverse the incontrovertible.[16]The failure of respondent to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a

violation of his duty to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his

clients.[17]

Likewise, as earlier pointed out, respondent persistently refused to return the money of complainant

despite her repeated demands. His conduct was clearly indicative of lack of integrity and moral

soundness; he was clinging to something that did not belong to him, and that he absolutely had no right

to keep or use.[18]

Lawyers are deemed to hold in trust their clients money and property that may come into their

possession.[19]As respondent obviously did nothing on the case of complainant, the amount she had

given -- as evidenced by the receipt issued by his law office -- was never applied to the filing fee. His

failure to return her money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he had converted it to his

own use and thereby betrayed the trust she had reposed in him.[20]His failure to do so constituted a

gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.[21]

The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the courts,[22]but

also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to

them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.[23]Respondent clearly fell short of the demands requiredof him as a member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge his duty to his client makes him

answerable not just to her, but also to this Court, to the legal profession, and to the general public.[24]

Given the crucial importance of his role in the administration of justice, his misconduct diminished the

confidence of the public in the integrity and dignity of the profession.[25]

WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTYof violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period

of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE,

within thirty (30) days from notice of this Decision, complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus

interest thereon, at the rate of six percent per annum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid. Letcopies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, as well as the National

Office and the Davao City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/ac_6424.htm#_ftn15

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

24/84

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 4380 October 13, 1995

NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B. PANTANOSAS, complainants,

vs.

ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN, respondent.

REGALADO,J.:

This resolves the administrative case filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas against Atty.

Miguel Sabacajan on February 14, 1995, 1 the verified complaint wherefor alleges:

xxx xxx xxx

4. That sometime in October, 1994, complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de

Oro City that the complainants' owner's duplicate of title covering their lands, Transfer Certificate of

Title Nos. T-91736 and T-91735 were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who in torn

entrusted the same to respondent;

5. That respondent admitted and confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody andhas even shown the same (to) the complainant Salud B. Pantanosas but when demanded (sic) to deliver

the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, marked as ANNEX "A," respondent refused

and continues to refuse without any justification to give their titles (and) when confronted, respondent

challenged the complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court;

6. That respondent's dare or challeng(e) is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of

his legal profession over the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is

his blood relative, his aunt, for which complainants shudder with mental anguish;

7. That due to his challeng(e), the complainants sent a letter to the Honorable Supreme Court for

enlightenment, copy of which is attached as ANNEX "B", for which the Honorable Supreme Court

required 19 legible copies of a verified complaint;

8. That in spite of repeated demands, request(s) and pleas towards (sic) respondent, respondent still

fail(ed) and stubbornly refused without justification to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners,

the complainants here(in), which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

25/84

obligations emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and

justice, to the prejudice and damage of the complainants;2

xxx xxx xxx

On March 22, 1995, the Court required respondent to comment on the foregoing complaint. In his

unverified "Answer" thereto, respondent admitted having met Salud Pantanosas but claims that, to his

recollection, "Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan" has never been to his office. Respondent likewise denied that

he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he

referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for

whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of the instant case. 3

Respondent likewise denies complainants' allegation that he is arrogant, in contrast to the innocence,

simplicity and ignorance of said complainants. He contends that the truth of the matter is that

complainants have been charged with a number of criminal and civil complaints before different courts.

He also asserts that he was holding the certificates of title in behalf of his client, Samto M. Uy. 4

Atty. Sabacajan stresses, by way of defense, that "the instant action was chosen precisely to browbeat

him into delivering the Certificates of Title to them without said certificates passing the hands of Mr.

Samto Uy with whom the complainants have some monetary obligations." 5

In its resolution dated June 26, 1995, 6 for internal administrative purposes the Court referred this case

to the Office of the Bar Confidant for the corresponding evaluation, report and recommendation.

From the foregoing proceedings taken on this matter, the Court finds that respondent admitted having

taken possession of the certificates of title of complainants but refused to surrender the same despite

demands made by the latter. It follows, therefore, that it was incumbent upon him to show that he was

legally justified in doing so. Instead, all he did was to inform this Court that "his obligation to deliver the

certificates to Mr. Samto Uy excludes the delivery of said certificates to anyone else." 7

Respondent attached some certifications to his "Answer" to support his contention that complainants

are notorious characters. However, the certifications indicate that most of the cases stated therein,

especially those involving fraud, have been dismissed. With respect to those still pending, there is no

indication as to the identity of the party who instituted the same, aside from the consideration that the

remedy thereon is judicial in nature. At any rate, these aspersions on the character of complainants

have no bearing on the misconduct of respondent charged in the present case.

Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to explain why hekept the certificates of title of complainants, that is, supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the

property. However, an examination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondent's

claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different from each other.

As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful remedies provided by law to protect the

interests of his client. The records do not show that he or his client have availed of said remedies,

instead of merely resorting to unexplained, if not curt, refusals to accommodate the requests of

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

26/84

complainants. Also, he cannot be unaware of the imposable sanctions on a counsel who resorts to

unlawful means that would cause injustice to the adversaries of his client.

The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and diligence required of

lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary

obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title sincethere is no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a

debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing him to take and retain

custody of said certificates of title.

Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and

principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles

supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to

impress the latter of his power to do so.

Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawfulobjectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded

charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this

proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.

On the foregoing considerations, the Court desires and directs that respondent should forthwith return

the certificates of title of complainants. To ensure the same, he should be placed under suspension until

he presents to the Court proof of receipt by complainants of their respective copies of Certificates of

Title Nos. T-91735 and T-91736 or a judicial order or document authorizing or justifying the retention of

possession thereof by respondent or his aforenamed client.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly

show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof

duly acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority

justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition

of the same or similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more severely.

Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the personal records of respondent and have copies thereof

furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and duly circularized to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

27/84

7/28/2019 canon 14,15,16,17,18 cases

28/84

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 6651 February 27, 2006

EDUARDO P. MENESES, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO,J.:

The Case

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Eduardo P. Meneses ("complainant") against Atty. Rodolfo P.

Macalino ("respondent") for violation of the lawyers oath.

The Facts

Complainant alleged that sometime in March 1993, respondent offered his legal services to complainant

to help secure the release of complainants car from the Bureau of Customs. Respondent proposed to

handle the case for a "package deal" of P60,000. Complainant agreed and initially gave respondent

P10,000 for processing of the papers. In June 1993, respondent asked for P30,000 to expedite the

release of the car. In both instances, respondent did not issue a receipt but promised to furnish

complainant with a receipt from the Bureau of Customs. Since then, respondent failed to givecomplainant an update on the matter.

Complainant repeatedly went to respondents house to inquire on the status of the release of the car.

Complainant was always told that respondent was not around and to just return another day. This went

on for more than a year.