CANON 16: LIEN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES & CANON 17:

FIDELITY TO CLIENTS CAUSE

MANALANG V. ANGELES
FACTS:
Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the complainants
in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against their employer,
the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, before the National Labor
Relations. Respondent was their counsel. Judgment was rendered in
their favor, in the amount of P6,500. After the decision became final, a
writ of execution issued. However, without authority from his clients,
respondent compromised the award and was able to collect P5,500
only.
Complainants said they made several demands upon
respondent to turn over to them the amount collected minus the
agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%), but Atty. Angeles
refused and offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.
Respondent counsel stated that he offered to give
complainants their money, but they insisted that he "deduct from this
attorney's fees the amount of P2,000, representing the amount
discounted by the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant,
together with sheriff legal fees and other administrative expenses."
Respondent claimed that to accept complainants' proposition meant
that he "would not be compensated for prosecuting and handling, the
case.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be
suspended from the practice of law because of grave misconduct
related to his clients' funds.
HELD
Where a member of the bar stands charged with malpractice,
the proceedings are not meant solely to rule on his culpability but also
to determine if the lawyer concerned is possessed of that good moral
character, which is a condition precedent to the privilege of practicing
law and continuing in the practice thereof.
Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object
of settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the consent
of the workers concerned . A client has every right to expect from his
counsel that nothing will be taken or withheld from him, save by the

rules of law validly applied. By compromising the judgment without the

consent of his clients, respondent not only went against the stream of
judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the
interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and
defense of their rights. In so doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. In the instant case, the
records clearly and abundantly point to respondent's receipt of and
failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of P4,550 intended for his
clients. This is a clear breach of Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Moreover, his excuse in his answer, that he should be allowed
to deduct sheriff's fees and other administrative expenses before
delivering the money due his clients, is unsatisfactory. Respondent
clearly failed to comply with the Rules of Court in the enforcement of
an attorney's liens. The records of this case are barren of any
statement of respondent's claims for lien or payment of his alleged
disbursements. Nor did respondent present any showing that he
caused written notices of his lien on the money judgment to be served
upon his clients and to the losing party
His act of holding on to his clients' money without their
acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.
He was clinging to something which was not his, and to which he had
no right. He appears oblivious of the admonition that a member of the
legal fraternity should refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
This is the first case on record against him, a fact which could be
taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the
amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months. suspension appears to
us in order.
CANON 16: LIEN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
TANHUECO V. DE DUMO (full text attached)
CANON 17: FIDELTY TO CLIENTS CAUSE
CANTILLER V. POTENCIANO
Facts: Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member
of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He is charged with deceit,

fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,

malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The
court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to vacate was then
issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The
complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as
a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed
petition for annulment of judgment.
The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila.
Respondent demanded from the complainant P l,000.00 as attorney's
fee. However the judge of the said court asked the respondent to
withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter
which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue
the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in
locating the judge.
Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand
of the latter. The amount was allegedly to be deposited with the
Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and P
1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed in order for the
complainant to retain the possession of the property. But later on
Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid. A
demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer
and the amounts were not returned.
Contrary to Potencianos promise that he would secure a restraining
order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant.
Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement.
Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.
Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of
Cantiller.
Held: When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants
that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion.
The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's

cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
elementary principles of professional ethics.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw
his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such
prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor
did he inform complainant of this fact.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and
beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of
public interest.
SOLATAN V. INOCENTES
Facts: Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty.
Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office
was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex
when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the
PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and
the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying
tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. Solatans sister was a
tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan
and other members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for nonpayment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered
in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. Solatan
was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He
informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a
new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of
the apartment. Atty.Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the
attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito
Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal
agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire
judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorneys fees and
costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty.
Camano representing half of the attorneys fees. Complainant failed to
make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty.
Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties
found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and

Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow

complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camanos
advice, complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff
who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned
to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the
Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying. Complainant
filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty.
Camano and Atty.Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to
suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to
reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or
not Atty.
Camano
violated the
Code
of Professional Responsibility
2) Whether or
not
Atty.
Inocentes violated the
Code of
Professional Responsibility
HELD: All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and
dealings with their clients.
An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a
person without being retained. No employment relation was offered or
accepted in the instant case.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all
lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their
clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with
an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of
disloyalty.
However,
the
advice
given
by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful
owner of the incorrectly leviedproperties was in consonance with his
duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being in
conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no
interest over the properties. The act of informing complainant that his
properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership
may hint that infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double
dealing and betrayal.
2. Atty. Inocentes failure to exercise certain responsibilities over
matters under the charge of hislaw firm is a blameworthy shortcoming.
As name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with
the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers
in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latt
ers dealings withcomplainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory
capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and
practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible
to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and
goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are
exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge.
VILLAFUERTE V. CORTEZ
*attached full text (3 pages)*
CANON 18: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Reontoy V. Ibadlit
Facts:
A complaint filed by Corazon T. Reontoy for the disbarment of her
counsel, Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, for having been negligent in handling
her case for partition, accounting and reconveyance then pending with
the RTC Br. 4, Kalibo, Aklan
Ibadlit admits to being the lawyer of Reontoy and that he received a
copy of the adverse decision of the Civil Case of Reontoy on June 19,
1989. He admits to having filed an appeal on July 17, 1989 when the
expiry date was July 4, 1989.
His defense was that, he informed the brother of Reontoy (Proculo) of
the adverse decision and that making an appeal was futile. He further
states that he believed that the message was passed and that he
intentionally did not file an appeal anymore. However, he was
informed that Reontoy wanted to appeal.
Proculo testified before the IBP that he had no knowledge and
authority regarding the case of Reontoy. Reontoy also informed the
IBP that upon visiting Ibadlits office, he merely told her that the period
for appeal has passed and just returned the case records.
Issue: WON respondent is administratively liable for his actions.

Held:
Yes. A lawyer has no right to waive his clients right to appeal. His
failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable."
Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities
faithfully and well as to protect the rights and interests of his client.
The record shows that complainant lost the case and suffered the
corresponding loss of her real property in Kalibo, Aklan, consisting of
her undivided share or interest in five (5) valuable parcels of land.
Certainly, complainant paid dearly for respondent's ignorance, laxity, if
not incompetence, by failing to appeal on time.
Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year effective upon finality hereof.
Motan V. Cadiao (full text attached; 2 pages)
Sencio V. Calvadores (full text attached; 2 pages)
Hernandez V. Padilla (full text attached; 4 pages)
Edquibal V. Ferrer (full text attached; 4 pages)
People V. Ingco (full text attached; 1 page)
Barbuco V. Beltran (full text attached also)
Facts:
Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Beltran
for malpractice of law. Complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy,
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal
before the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, which adverese to the complainants interest. On the
same day, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the
total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.
However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to file

Appellant's brief. The brief was only filed by respondent 43 days after
the deadline of submission of the same.
When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability by
alleging that he met a vehicular accident, which incapacitated him for
several days, thus he cannot finish the appellants brief. Moreover, he
sustained injuries in the head, which as a result respondent lost track
of schedules of hearings and deadlines for submitting briefs.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's failure to file appellant's brief warrants
sanctions.
Held:
Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable. An attorney is bound to protect his clients
interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to
file brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43)
days
resulted
in
the
dismissal
of
the
appeal.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and
suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse
him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a
member of a law firm composed of not just one lawyer. This is shown
by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he
signed for and on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law
Office. As such, respondent could have asked any of his partners in
the law office to file the Appellants Brief for him or, at least, to file a
Motion for Extension of Time to file the said pleading.
Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that
every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence,
skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyers fidelity to the cause of his
client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that
should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to
protect the interest of his client within the bounds of the law. The
Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve
his client with competence and diligence and he should not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him. "

Short Digest/No facts: Lawyer suspended for failing to file

appellants brief resulting to the dismissal of his clients case. Rule
18.03 (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable).
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his
ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief within the
reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence,
more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the
dismissal of the appeal. That Respondent was involved in a vehicular
accident and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot
serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering that
he was a member of a law firm composed of not just one
lawyer. Respondent could have asked any of his partners in the law
office to file the Appellants Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for
Extensionof Time to file the said pleading. Failure to timely file a plead
ing is by itself inexcusablenegligence on Respondents part and his
liability is further compounded by his failure to maintain an open line
of communication with his client, in violation of Rule 18.04 a
lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for
information
Legarda V. CA (attached full text)
Suarez V. CA (attached 3 pages full text)
A petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 17488 and to direct respondent trial court to
reopen the joint trial of Criminal Cases No. 7284 to 7296,
7302-7303, and 7650.
On May 7, 1985 petitioner was charged in Criminal Cases No.
7284-7296, and No. 7302-7303 before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 61, Angeles City with violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Check Law. On August 21,
1985, petitioner was again charged in the same court with
the same offense in Criminal Case No. 7650. All these cases

were consolidated for trial and decision in Branch LXI of the

Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region in Angeles
City, at that time presided over by the Honorable Ramon C.
Tuazon who has since retired. At the arraignment, petitioner
pleaded "not guilty" to all the informations against her. She
then posted bail in all the cases and was granted provisional
liberty.
At the trial of the cases, petitioner did not appear in court
despite notices sent to her residence as appearing on the
record and to her bondsmen. Her counsel de parte, Atty.
Vicente San Luis appeared in her behalf during the time the
prosecution was presenting its evidence up to October 20,
1987 when it was the turn of the defense to present its
evidence. However, the hearing on said date was postponed
because of the absence of the private prosecutor and the
continuation of the hearing was reset to November 19, 1987.
On said date, Atty. Buen Zamar entered a special appearance
for Atty. San Luis as counsel for the accused without,
however, the consent of petitioner. From said date Atty. San
Luis did not appear in court as he had left for the United
States of America and has not returned since then, without
informing petitioner or withdrawing his appearance. Atty.
Zamar, together with the prosecution, asked for deferment of
the hearing that day as he was not conversant with the facts
of the case, and the continuation of hearing was reset to
January 6, 1988, on which date Atty. Zamar again asked for
postponement and the hearing was reset to February 3,
1988. However, also on January 6, 1988, the trial court issued
an order forfeiting in favor of the government the bonds
posted by petitioner for her provisional liberty in view of the
failure of her bondsmen to produce her at the scheduled
hearing of the cases against her.
Notices were continually sent to Atty. San Luis address and
the petitioner's bondsmen and served by personal service by
the court's process server at her address of record upon her
mother who informed the process server that petitioner had
been out of the country for almost two years already. Her
mother did not forward the notice to petitioner.

On May 31, 1988, when Criminal Case No. 7650 was called
for promulgation of judgment, the trial court appointed Atty.
Augusto Panlilio as counsel de oficio to represent the absent
petitioner. The judgment of conviction of petitioner was
promulgated by the reading of the decision in open court by
the Branch Clerk of Court and furnishing the parties through
their respective counsel present in court with copies of the
decision. Likewise, copies of the decision were sent by
registered mail to petitioner
On December 31, 1988, petitioner was arrested and detained
in the local jail of Angeles City.
On February 6, 1989, petitioner, now represented by a new
counsel de parte filed three motions, namely:
(1)for temporary release as she was pregnant and
allegedly suffering from a heart ailment; (2) to set aside
promulgation of judgment; and (3) to re-open trial. The
prosecution opposed the motions The trial court then
denied the motions to set aside judgment and to re-open
trial, but with regard to the motion for temporary release,
directed that "should a medical examination or
confinement in the hospital be necessary, the court may
allow the accused under guard to consult a physician or
enter a hospital for medical treatment."
Issue: whether or not petitioner was denied her day in court
due to negligence of her lawyer
Held. Yes.
The legal difficulty petitioner finds herself in is imputable to
the negligence of her de parte counsel, Atty. Vicente San
Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case without formally
withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be
permanently staying in the U.S.A. so that petitioner could
appoint another counsel.
A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He
owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learningand ability (Canon 17, Code of
Professional Responsibility; Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 157). A
lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the

character of the business he undertakes to do (Agpalo's Legal

Ethics, p. 174). Among his duties to his client is attending to
the hearings of the case (People's Homesite and Housing
Corp. vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471 [1964]; Agpalo's Legal Ethics,
p. 175).
Clearly, petitioner was deprived of her right to present and
prove her defense due to the negligence of her counsel. The
appearance of a certain Atty. Buen Zamar is of no comment
as there was no client-attorney relationship between him and
petitioner who did not engage his services to represent her in
said cases. The fact that notices of the promulgation of
judgment were sent to petitioner at her address of record
produced no legal consequence because notice to a party is
not effective notice in law (Elli vs. Ditan, 5 SCRA 503 [1962];
Mata vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. 7 SCRA 227 [1963]).
Court rules, therefore, that under the facts of the case,
petitioner was deprived of due process of law. It is the better
part of judicial wisdom and prudence to accord the petitioner
the opportunity to prove her defense. It is abhorrent to the
judicial conscience to consign petitioner to the ordeals of
imprisonment without affording her full opportunity to
present her evidence including, of course, the assistance of
competent counselling.
The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to reopen Criminal Cases
No. 7284-7296, 7302-7303, and 7650 for the reception of
evidence for the defense.
Perea V. Almadro (full text attached)
Blanza V. Arcangel (full text 2 pages)