DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C.

MAGULTA
FACTS:
Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of
money against a creditor. Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner,
which were not successful and so the former intimated that a case should
already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also
amounts for the filing of the case.
A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any feedback
as to the status of his case. Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyers
office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has already been filed
even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of
the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutors office while
the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to inquire about the case. The
lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was
absent that day.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office of the
clerk of court to see for himself the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no
such case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse
that the delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown
the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he
had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease
petitioners feelings, he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks,
postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,000.00 and
P8,000.00, respectively.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP as follows: It is evident that the P25,000 deposited by
complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of the Regwill
complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint,
a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to
file the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his client. The
failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees
deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of
the client, which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice,

constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the

law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the
money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the
respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.

X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of
the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination,
petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not
meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of
the COMELEC.
HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations
as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an
advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner,
referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized
to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or
while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for
that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar
examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying

member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He
has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten
years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and
a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.

X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

FIGUEROA vs. BARRANCO

FACTS:
Figueroa and Barranco were sweethearts since their teens.
Their intimacy eventually resulted to a son born out of wedlock. At this point
(1964) Barranco promised Figueroa that he would marry her when he passes the
bar examinations. After four takes, he finally passed but did not hold true to his
promise of marriage. In 1971, the irrelationship ended. Years later, he
married another woman. When Barranco was about to take his oath to enter the
legal profession, Figueroa filed a complaint relaying to the court what happened
between her and Barranco. Until 1988, Barranco has filed three motions to
dismiss because Figueroa still would not persecute and because for the past
years, he has become elected in the Sangguniang Bayan, has actively
participated in various civic organizations and has acquired a good standing
within his community while the case was pending. The court sought the opinion
of the IBP which recommended that Barranco be allowed to take his oath.
Figueroa reappeared and intercepted the scheduled oath-taking
of Barranco which led to its delay.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take his oath despite the
accusations of Figueroa.
HELD:
Yes. The maintenance of an intimate relationship between a man and a woman,
both of whom had no impediment to marry and voluntarily carried on with the

affair, does not amount to a grossly immoral conduct even if a child was born out
of the relationship. His previous acts may be said to be a question to his moral
character but none of these are so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Her
allegations that she was forced to have sexual relations with him cannot lie as
evidence by her continued cohabitation with him even after their child was born in
1964. The ignobleness of his treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently punished by the
26 years that he has been prevented from entering the profession he has worked
so hard for.
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
REGALA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
PCGG want to build up their case against Eduardo Coujuanco for the
anomalies in the COCO LEVY FUNDS. PCGG wants petitioners to divulge
that Cojuangco indeed was a client of their firm, as well as other information
regarding Cojuangco.
ISSUE:
Can the PCGG compel petitioners to divulge its clients name?
HELD:
NO.
As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. The general rule is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
1) The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2) The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a
client.
3) The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.

Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as
a general rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled to know
who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against
unknown forces.
Except:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing
the clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyers advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is
privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client
unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual
of a crime, the clients name is privileged. That client identity is privileged in
those instances where a strong probability exists that the disclosure of the
client's identity would implicate the client in the very criminal activity for which
the lawyers legal advice was obtained.