Celaje vs. Soriano [A.C. No.

7418, October 9, 2007] Facts: Andrea Balce Celaje alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond, which complainant found out later, however, to be unnecessary as the application for the writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent also asked for money on several occasions allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case, Judge Milagros Quijano, of the Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36. When complainant approached Judge Quijano and asked whether what respondent was saying was true, Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations and advised her to file an administrative case against respondent. In his Answer, respondent denied the charges against him and averred that the same were merely concocted by complainant to destroy his character. He also contended that it was complainant who boasted that she is a professional fixer in administrative agencies as well as in the judiciary; and that complainant promised to pay him large amounts of attorney's fees which complainant however did not keep. Both parties appeared in the Mandatory Conference and Hearing on January 18, 2006. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision. In the Report and Recommendation dated January 24, 2006, IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct in his relations with his client and recommended that respondent be suspended for three years from the practice of law. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Soriano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canon 16 thereof, mandates that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. He shall account for all money or property collected or received from his client and shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. As found by Commissioner Funa, it was established that respondent could not account for P5,800.00 which was part of the sum given by complainant to him for the purpose of filing an injunctive bond. Respondent admitted having received from complainant P17,800.00 on April 19, 2002 for the preliminary injunction and admitted to having a balance of P9,000.00 in his promissory note to the Manila Insurance Co., Inc. dated April 23, 2002, which was reduced to P5,800.00 by reason of an additional payment of P4,000.00, leaving an amount of P5,800.00 unaccounted for. The affidavit of theinsurance agent, Valentina Ramos, dated December 8, 2005 also states that even up to said date, respondent had not yet paid the balance of P5,800.00. Respondent's failure to return the money to complainant upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. It is a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession which deserves punishment. Atty. Soriano is suspended from the practice of law for two years.

BARCENAS vs. ATTY. ALVERO FACTS: Reynaria Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio, entrusted Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero the amount of 300K to be consigned in court to redeem the rights of his father as tenant of a ricefield. Later, they found out that Atty. Alvero was losing a lot of money in cockfights. To check if their money was still intact, they pretended to borrow P80K from the 300K. Respondent replied Akala niyo ba ay madaling kunin ang pera pag nasa korte na? Subsequently, complainant discovered the respondent never consigned the amount in court and instead used it for his personal needs. Despite promising to return the amount, respondent failed to do so. HELD: YES, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Rules 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 of Canon 16. Suspended for 2 yrs. Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of client in the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his client when: 1. Becomes due; and 2. Upon demand. Atty. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed no attorney-client relationship between him and Barcenas. 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 Atty. Alvero's failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he converted the money for his own use, and this act constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.a They

constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical behavior for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor . - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so

Yao vs. Aurelio A.C. No. 7023 March 30, 2006 Facts: Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation and since 1987, he retained the services of another stockholder, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, as his personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a disagreement. Aurelio then filed cas es against Yao and his wife. Yao alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his wife constitute an abuse of the confidential information which Aurelio obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel. Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed those which he obtained by virtue of his being a stockholder of Solar Textile Finishing Corporation. The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying dividends to Aurelio which compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder. He recommended that Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and adopted the said recommendation. Issue: Whether or not Aurelio violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Held: Yes, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. He took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at Yao and in doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with Yao and his companies for his own end. It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a fiduciary one. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fi delity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. An attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. It is to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arise at the inception of their relationship. It does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client.

A.C. No. 5162 March 20, 2003 EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, complainant, vs. ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA, respondent. ECTHA and respondent entered into a Retainers Agreement wherein respondent lawyer agreed to handle the case of the complainant for P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and P1,000.00 as appearance fee per hearing. It was further agreed that respondent lawyer would update the complaint and work on the development of the case. Respondent failed to do such. Demands to give back the money were made but to no avail, thus this administrative charge. Despite due notice, respondent never attended the IBP administrative hearings. Held: SUSPENDED for six (6) months, with WARNING that repetition of the same will merit more severe penalty, and is ORDERED to RETURN to complainant their money with interest. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY to the cause of his client mindful always of the trust and confidence reposed in him. An attorney-at-law must serve his client with competence and diligence at all times, and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, for it is his sworn duty to delay no man for money or malice and to conduct himself in a proper manner not just to his client, but also to the court, the legal profession and society at large. Respondents lamentable attitude towards his clients case is clearly evident from his apparent disinterest in his own case for disbarment. Dioneda never bothered to present evidence in his defense. He disregarded all notices sent to him by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, which were personally served at his office address. He never appeared before the Commission despite several opportunities to do so and explain his side. The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual

lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer's oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda Facts: Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association (ETCHA) filed a disbarment case against Atty. Michael Dioneda. Allegedly, ETHCA and Dioneda entered into a Retainers Agreement in handling a civil case of ETCHA against LVF Realty, Mr. Tinsay and BPI Family Savings Bank, for P 20,00 0 as attorneys fee and P 1,000 as appearance per hearing. But when Mr. Garcia, ETCHA President, was not able to receive from Dioneda any update of the status of the case, he check on the record of the case and found out that Dioneda did nothing for the development of the said case. Garcia, then demanded for the return of P 20,000, but Dioneda respond that a portion of the money would be deducted as reasonable fee for the efforts he exerted and he had no intention to defraud ETCHA. Through IBP investigation, it was found that Dioneda failed to render the corresponding legal services to ETCHA and no factual basis to determine the value of his work as counsel. Issue: Whether or not Dioneda is entitled to a reasonable fee. Held: Dioneda is not entitled to reasonable fee because there is no evidence that determine the value of his work as counsel of ETCHA. Canon 20 of the CPR states that: A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Dionedas negligence in the discharge of his duty restricts him to recover from his client a reasonable fee. Thus, Dioneda is suspended from the practice of law for six months and ordered to return the P 20,000 to ETCHA with interest of 12% per annum from date of promulgation of the decision.

PENA V. APARICIO FACTS Atty. Aparicio was the legal counsel for Grace Hufana in an alleged dismissal case before the NLRC against Pena, President of MOF Company. Atty. Aparicio prayed that his client be given separation pay. Pea rejected the claim. Thereafter, Pea sent notices to Hufana to return to work. Atty. Aparicio replied with a letter reiterating the claim of his client. The letter also contained threats against the company stating that if the claim is not paid on Aug. 10, 2005, they will file multiple charges such as, criminal charges for tax evasion, falsification of documents, and for the cancellation of the companys business license. Pea filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Aparicio with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for violating Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Aparicio in turn filed counterclaims for the defamatory charges against him. The IBP dismissed the complaint because Pea had allegedly failed to file his position paper and the certification against forum shopping. The IBP transmitted the records of the case to the SC. Atty. Aparicio filed an MR with the SC reiterating his claim for damages against Pea in the amount of P400M for filing false, malicious, defamatory, fraudulent suit against him. Pea likewise filed this Petition for Review alleging that he submitted his position paper and that the dismissal denied him of due process. ISSUE W/N Atty. Aparicio is guilty of violating Rule 19.01? HELD Yup! First of all, the SC found that Pea actually submitted his position paper. In addition, disbarment proceedings are sui generis, hence, the requirement of a certification of forum shopping is not to be strictly complied with in such a case. At any rate, Pea actually submitted a certification against forum shopping after Atty. Aparicio filed the motion to dismiss, curing the supposed defect in the original complaint. Now to the merits Canon 19, a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law, this shows that a lawyers duty to his client is subordinate to his duty in the administration of justice. Rule 19.01, a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Under such Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file baseless criminal

cases against the adversaries of his client to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield to the claims of the lawyers client. This is exactly what Atty. Aparicio did in this case. Furthermore, his threats were not only unethical, but they amounted to blackmail extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure in the public prints. Blackmail and extortion would not only entail disbarment but also possible criminal prosecution. Worse yet, Atty. Aparicio actually admitted and even found it his obligation to tell the truth of the offenses he imputed against Pea. He also stated that the writing of demand letters is standard practice. SC ruled that Atty. Aparicios assertions are misleading because the fact of the matter is, he used such threats to gain leverage against Pea and force the latter to accede to his clients claim s. The letter even implied a promise to keep silent about the said violations if the claim is met. While it is true that writing demand letters is standard practice in the profession of law, such letters must not contain threats such as those found in this case. Nevertheless, SC held that disbarment is too severe a penalty considering that Atty. Aparicio wrote the letter out of his overzealousness to protect his clients interests. Therefore, the SC reprimanded him with a stern warning.

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES V. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ FACTS: The complainant in this disbarment case is Atty. Briones. The respondent is Atty. Jimenez. Complainant Briones is the Special Administrator of the Henson Estate, while respondent Jimenez is the counsel for Heirs of Henson. The root of herein administrative complaint for Disbarment is an RTC Order (2002). The RTC Order directed complainant Briones to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. Complainant Briones did not reply to the demand, so respondent Jimenez opted to file a criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. Complainant Briones now claims that respondent Jimenez is guilty of violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional responsibility by filing the unfounded criminal complaint against complainant to obtain an improper advantage: Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case of proceeding. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Jimenez should be administratively liable. HELD: Yes. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED [since no evidence of malice or bad faith] for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clie nts and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.