ADAMSON UNIVERSITY

College of Law
Legal Ethics
Second Semester, School Year 2016 2017

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Chapter IV
The Lawyer and The Client

Submitted By:
Fronteras, Lianne Carmeli B.
Tabanao, Michelle G.
Vicento, Jessica S.

Submitted To:
Atty. Theresa Dizon
 CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the
latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the
guilt of said person.

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client
if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client
or between a present client and the prospective client.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations
with paying clients.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon
as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his
own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.

Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in

respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

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.

Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither overstating
nor understating the prospects of the case.

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.

2
 Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
the principles of fairness.

Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation

concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.

Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.

Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

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.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with
the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

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 the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

3
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS
OF THE LAW.

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.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course
of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly
call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling
the case.

4
 A.C. No. 10187 July 22, 2015
Celina F. Andrada, Complainant v. Atty. Rodrigo Cera, Respondent.
(Canon 16, Rule 16.03 and 18.03)

Facts:

Celina F. Andrada (complainant) hired the services of Atty. Rodrigo Cera (respondent) to
represent her in an annulment of marriage pending before the RTC of Baguio City. She
gave P3,000.00 to respondent for the processing and issuance of her childrens birth
certificates which were not registered because her husband failed to accomplish the
certificates. These documents were needed in her case for annulment of marriage. She
also gave the amount of P10,000.00 as advance payment for the hiring of a psychologist.

When the complainant asked from the NSO the release of her childrens birth certificates,
she was requested to provide the receipt for the request. Knowing it was with respondent,
she called him up but she failed to get even the receipt number; respondent assured her
that the payment for the request had been made. When she failed to get the receipt or
receipt number, she requested confirmation of payment with the NSO; thereat, she found
out that respondent never paid nor filed the applications for birth certificates.

Through her father Freddie J. Farres, she requested surrender of the NSO receipt and
return of the P10,000.00 she gave to respondent; despite receipt, respondent failed to heed
the demand letter. Celina then filed an administrative case against Atty. Cera, alleging
deceitful, irresponsible and unprofessional conduct on the part of the latter, resulting in the
unwarranted delay of her case and forcing her to file anew an annulment case against her
husband. Respondent did not appear in the mandatory conference nor filed his answer to
the complaint. In April, 2012, respondent returned the amount of P17,000.00 to the
complainant pursuant to a compromise agreement in exchange for the dismissal of the case
for estafa she filed against respondent. He also promised to secure the birth certificates of
her children, an undertaking he has yet to fulfill.

In its report and recommendation, the IBP Commissioner recommended the imposition of
three years suspension from the practice of law of respondent, upon a finding that he
engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct against his clients interest
in violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, as well as misappropriation of funds entrusted to him
and failing to account and return his clients money upon demand. The IBP Board of
Governors modified the recommended penalty to one year suspension.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for

misappropriating the funds entrusted to him by his client and for failing to return such
money upon clients demand.

5
Ruling:

The Court sustained the IBP Board of Governors findings of administrative liability,
as well as its recommended penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of
law.

When a lawyer takes a case, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting
his clients rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a
good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed by his client, and
makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts, and
society.

It is apparent that the respondent did not exert any effort on his clients case and
completely reneged on the obligations due his client. The respondent lied to the
complainant that he had made the necessary application and payment with the NSO for the
issuance of the birth certificates of the complainants children. Despite the complainants
repeated requests, the respondent failed to comply with their agreement to provide a
psychologist to administer the necessary psychological tests, thus causing further delay in
the proceedings of the complainants annulment case.

Clearly, these actions show the respondents negligence and lack of zeal in handling the
complainants case, for which he should be made administratively liable. He violated not
only Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, but also Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the same Code,
which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Moreover, the respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when he unlawfully
withheld the complainants money. The money given to the respondent was never used for
its intended purposes, as could be gleaned from the NSOs non-issuance of birth
certificates of the complainants children, and by the non-administration of psychological
tests on the complainant and her children. These omissions confirm the presumption that
the respondent misappropriated the funds of his client, in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR
that holds a lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. The respondent, likewise, violated Rule 16.03of Canon 16 (which provides that
a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand)
when he failed to return the complainants money upon demand. The Court note that it was
only after a year that the respondent, under threat of a criminal case filed against him,
returned the complainants money. The respondents restitution cannot serve to mitigate
his administrative liability as he returned the complainants money not voluntarily but for
fear of possible criminal liability.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for ONE (1) YEAR. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.

6
 A.C. CBD No. 190 January 28, 1998
Corazon T. Reontoy, Complainant v. Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, Respondent.
(Canon 18)

Facts:

Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit (respondent) was the lawyer of the Corazon T. Reontoy
(complainant) in a civil case which was decided by the RTC unfavorably to the complainant.
The respondent admitted that he received copy of the adverse decision on June 19, 1989
and he filed the notice of appeal only on July 17, 1989 when the expiry date to appeal was
July 4, 1989.

As alleged by the respondent, after he received the adverse decision he immediately

contacted complainants brother, ProculoTomazar and requested the latter to inform
complainant that they lost the case and that after going over the decision he (respondent)
was convinced that the appeal was futile. Confident that Tomazar had conveyed the
message to the respondent, and he did not receive any advice from the complainant, he
intentionally did not file the corresponding notice of appeal. But after Tomazar informed
him later in his office that the complainant wished to appeal the decision, he forthwith filed
a notice of appeal, in the interest of justice, on July 17, 1989.

The notice of appeal having been filed beyond the reglementary period, the trial court on
August 16, 1989 denied the appeal and granted the Motion of Execution of Judgment of the
prevailing parties.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for
refusing to file an appeal on behalf of his client when in his opinion to make an appeal
would be futile.

Ruling:

The Court held the respondent administratively liable. Indeed it was his fault in not
appealing within the reglementary period in the belief that appeal would be useless. It was
highly improper for him to adopt such opinion without any clear instruction from his client
not to appeal the adverse verdict.

A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in
the defense of his rights. He must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can
be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He must present
every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause,
regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the
lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the general
public.

7
A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's 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."

Had respondent filed the appeal on time he could have easily withdrawn the case later so
that he could have the time to confer meticulously with his client and then decide whether
to pursue the case to the appellate court; or, he could have withdrawn his services and
advised complainant to look for another lawyer before the period to appeal lapsed to give
his client a chance to ventilate her case on appeal.

Respondent claims that he nonetheless filed a notice of appeal in the interest of justice.
Notably, respondent filed the notice of appeal on 17 July 1989, or only after the period to
appeal had already expired. The belated filing of the appeal cannot in any way mitigate
respondent's liability; on the contrary, it would show ignorance on his part. As a lawyer, he
ought to know that his notice of appeal, having been filed beyond the reglementary period,
would surely be struck down for late filing.

In sum, 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.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof.

8
 A.C. No. 11128 April 6, 2016
Pedro Ramos, Complainant v. Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan, Respondent.
(Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and 16.03)

Facts:

Pedro Ramos (complainant) alleged that Atty. Mandagan (respondent) demanded from him
the amount of P300,000 in connection with the criminal case filed against hum for murder
before the Sandiganbayan. As per the respondent, it shall be used as a bail bond in the
event that the petition for bail is granted. Also, the respondent collected an additional
amount of P10,000 for operating expenses. In both instances, an acknowledgement receipt
was issued in favor of Ramos as proof of payment.

However, the petition for bail was not granted and the Atty. Mandagan withdraw as his
counsel without returning the amount of P300,000 despite the demand send by Ramos
counsel.

On the other hand, Atty. Mandagan argued that the P300,000 was not intended for payment
of bail, but as mobilization expenses for preparation of witnesses, defenses, and other
documentary exhibits for both Ramos and his co-accused Gary Silwanon. Moreover, he also
alleged that the complainant never paid her for acceptance, appearance fees and legal
services rendered in the entire course of proceedings until her withdrawal as counsel.

The IBP-CSB then issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference, directing both parties to
appear for a mandatory conference. However, only Atty. Joselito Frial appeared, as counsel
for Ramos, while Atty. Mandagan was absent.

Thus, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation, finding Atty. Mandagan liable for
gross misconduct and for failure to render an accounting of funds, and recommended that
the respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Subsequently, the IBP Board of
Governor adopted and approved such recommendation.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing
to account his clients money and for not returning such upon the latters demand.

Ruling:

A previous jurisprudence held that when a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer must render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spend for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the
money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the
client.1
1
Cruz-Villanueva v. Atty. Rivera, 536 Phil 409 (2006)

9
In the present case, Atty. Mandagan never denied receiving the amount of 300,000.00
from Ramos for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the latters provisional liberty.
When the petition for bail of Ramos, however, was denied by the Sandiganbayan, Atty.
Mandagan failed to return the amount to Ramos. Worse, she unjustifiably refused to turn
over the amount to Ramos despite demand from Ramos counsel.

Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the rule stated in Canon 16 of the
CPR, to wit:

Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand.

This court cannot give credence to Atty. Mandagans defense that the amount she received
from Ramos was not for bail but merely for mobilization expenses. Records show that Atty.
Mandagan failed to substantiate her claim. At any rate, as correctly observed by the IBP-
CBD, "[Atty. Mandagan] should be forthright in stating what constitutes legal mobilization
expenses if only to dispel any doubt as to its intended purpose.

Atty. Mandagans failure to make an accounting or to return the money to Ramos is a

violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be scrupulously
careful in handling money entrusted to her in her professional capacity because the CPR
exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan GUILTY of
violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon
receipt of this Resolution, with WARNING that a similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.

10
 A.C. No. 9532 October 8, 2013
Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher, Complainant v.
Atty. Rustico B, Gagate, Respondent.
(Canon 17, Rule 18.03 and 19.01)

Facts:

Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher (complainant), the surviving spouse of David B.

Pitcher (David), engaged the services of Atty. Rustico B. Gagate (respondent) in order to
settle among others, the 40% shareholdings of the deceased in Consulting Edge, Inc.
(Consulting Edge).

The complainant and respondent met with Katherine Moscoso Bantegui (Bantegui),a major
stockholder of Consulting Edge, in order to discuss the settlement of Davids interest in the
company. They agreed to another meeting which was, however, postponed by Bantegui.
Suspecting that the latter was merely stalling for time in order to hide something,
respondent insisted that the appointment proceed as scheduled.

Eventually, the parties agreed to meet at the company premises. However, before the
scheduled meeting, complainant was prevailed upon by respondent to put a paper seal on
the door of the said premises, assuring her that the same was legal.

During the meeting, Bantegui expressed disappointment over the actions of complainant
and respondent, which impelled her to just leave the matter for the court to settle. She then
asked them to leave, locked the office and refused to give them a duplicate key.

Subsequently, however, respondent, without the consent of Bantegui, caused the change in
the lock of the Consulting Edge office door, which prevented the employees thereof from
entering and carrying on the operations of the company. This prompted Bantegui to file
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati (Prosecutors Office) a complaint for
grave coercion against complainant and respondent. In turn, respondent advised
complainant that criminal and civil cases should be initiated against Bantegui for the
recovery of David's personal records/business interests in Consulting Edge.

Thus, the two entered in Memorandum of Agreement, whereby respondent undertook the
filing of the cases against Bantegui, for which complainant paid the amount of P150,000.00
as acceptance fee and committed herself to pay respondent P1,000.00 for every court
hearing.

Later on, the Prosecutors Office found probable cause to charge the complainant and
respondent for grave coercion and subsequently warrants of arrest were issued against
them. Due to the foregoing, respondent advised complainant to go into hiding until he had
filed the necessary motions in court. However, respondent abandoned the grave coercion
case and stopped communicating with the complainant. Failing to reach the respondent
despite diligent efforts, complainant filed an administrative case before the IBP-CBD.

11
As per IBP report, the respondent failed to safeguard complainants legitimate interest and
abandoned her in the grave coercion case. Moreover, Bantegui is not legally obliged to
honor complainant as subrogee; thus the actions taken by the respondents, such as placing
of paper seal on the door of the company premises and the changing of its lock are uncalled
for. Worse, when faced with the counter legal measures to his actions, he abandoned his
clients cause.

Issue:

Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitute a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client
is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that
lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree
of diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free. To this end, he is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful
objectives. These principles are embodied in Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule
19.01 of Canon 19 of the CPR.

Keeping with the foregoing rules, the Court finds that respondent failed to exercise the
required diligence in handling complainants cause since he: first, failed to represent her
competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper
bounds of law; and, second, abandoned his clients cause while the grave coercion case
against them was pending.

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

Further, respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui

Pitcher the P150,000.00 acceptance fee he received from the latter within ninety (90)
days from the finality of this Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

12
 A.C. No. 6297 July 13, 2004
Dolores D. Parinas, Complainant v. Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, Respondent.
(Canon 18, Rule 18.01, 18.02, and 18.03)

Facts:

Dolores Dryden Parinas (complainant) engaged the services of Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto
(respondent) to annul her marriage to Danilo Soriano. They agreed that for the legal
services, Parinas would pay Atty. Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000, the filing fee of
P2,500 and other incidental expenses.

As an initial payment, the complainant paid P10,000 and the correspondingly, the
respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt. Parias gave Paguinto a diskette containing
a narration of what happened between her and her estranged husband. Parias also
furnished Paguinto with a copy of her marriage contract with Soriano. Before the end of
December 2001, Parias gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee.

Sometime between January and April 2002, the complainant inquired from the respondent
the progress of the annulment case. Before the hearing, the complainant requested for a
meeting with the respondent but the secretary informed her that the hearing was cancelled
and the judge reset the succeeding hearings because he is sick and out of town.

Thus, on the first week of July 2002, the complainant want to the trial court to inquire
about her case but the court personnel informed her that there was no such case filed in
their court. Parias asked Paguinto for the case number, date of filing, copy of the petition
and the court where the annulment case was pending. Paguinto told Parias that the
records were at his office and that he was in Malolos, Bulacan attending to a case. It turned
out that there was no annulment case filed in RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised
to return the money that Parias paid as down payment. However, Paguinto returned
the P10,000 only after Parias filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline ("CBD") of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP") the present complaint for disbarment.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents action constitute a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:

Rule 16.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected for or from the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-
client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to
file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand. Paguinto returned the
money only after Parias filed this administrative case for disbarment.

13
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a
lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the
requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to
exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to
exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to
handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this
duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases
as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients' interests will suffer. It is not enough that
a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate
attention to his legal work.

The lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost learning and ability in handling his
cases. A license to practice law is a guarantee by the courts to the public that the licensee
possesses sufficient skill, knowledge and diligence to manage their cases. The legal
profession demands from a lawyer the vigilance and attention expected of a good father of
a family.

And failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code.

Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service that he is not
qualified to render. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation. He has the duty to prepare for trial with diligence
and deliberate speed. Rule 18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence shall render him liable.

One last point. Parias executed an Affidavit of Withdrawal of the complaint stating that
she was withdrawing the administrative complaint against Paguinto after realizing that
"said complaint against the respondent arose due to misapprehension of facts,
misunderstanding and miscommunication." Paguinto, on the other hand, submitted a
Manifestation and Motion apologizing to Parias for his actuations and admitting that he
was "solely to be blamed." A compromise or withdrawal of charges does not terminate an
administrative complaint against a lawyer, especially in this case where the lawyer
admitted his misconduct.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto GUILTY of violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we penalize Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto with
SUSPENSION for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law effective upon receipt of this
Decision.

14
 A.C. 5098, April 11, 2012
Josefa Aninon, Complainant v. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., Respondent.
(Rule 15.03)

Facts:

This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. for (1) Violating the
lawyer's duty to preserve confidential information received from his client and (2)
violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interest.

Complainant, Josefina M. Aninon related that she previously engaged the legal services of
Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a deed of sale over a parcel
of land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. allegedly violated
her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the
Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida Caneted the legal wife of Brigido Canete, Jr. The
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from
her in filing the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution
of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information he
obtained from her in filing the civil case.

The IBP commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting

interests.

Ruling:

The relationship between a lawyer and his /her client should ideally be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must
prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client's most confidential information to his/her
lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. Part of the lawyer's
duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted below:

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.

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above
rule is present in given case.

15
1. Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other. Thus, if a lawyer's
argument for one client has to be opposed by the same lawyer in arguing for the
other client, there is a violation of the rule.

2. The Test of Inconsistency of Interests. Whether the acceptance of a new relation

would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.

3. Whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a
former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or
previous employment.

Records show that the circumstances of the case prove that respondent violated Rule
15.03.

First, the legal services of respondent were initially engaged by complainant to protect her
interest over a certain property, and that the former was the one who prepared and
executed Deed of Sale in the latter's favor.

Second, respondent met with Zenaida Canete to discuss the latter's interest over the
property subject of the deed of sale, at this point; respondent had knowledge of clashing
interest between complainant and Canete.

Third, despite this knowledge respondent still accepted the engagement from Canete.

Fourth, because of respondent's knowledge he was able to fine a case against herein
complainant, impleaded her as defendant in the case and the case he filed was for the
annulment of the Deed of Sale he previously prepared for the complainant.

Rule 15.03 provides for an exception though. However, it cannot be applied to the case of
respondent because he did not make a full disclosure of the facts to the complainant and to
Zenaida Canete before he accepted a new engagement. He did not also inform complaint
that Mr. Canete was engaging his services.

Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana,Jr. is found guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended for one (1) year from the practice
of law.

16
 A.C. No. 5704 , May 8, 2009
Willem Kupers, Complainant v. Atty Johnson B. Hontanosas, Respondent.
(Canon 15 and Rue 15.07)

Facts:

Complainant, William Kupers alleged that respondent had (1) prepared and notarized
contracts that are both invalid and illegal as these contracts violated the limitations on
aliens leasing private lands. (2) served conflicting interests since he performed legal
services for adverse parties; (3) refused to furnish copies of the contracts he notarized to
the parties thereof; (4) notarized documents without keeping copies thereof and (5) failed
to property discharge his duty to his client Karl Novak, particularly when respondent
allegedly refused to accept his dismissal as counsel for Novak, failed to turn over Novak's
documents thereafter, handled legal matters without adequate preparation, betrayed
Novak's trust and refused to see Novak with a translator of Novak's choice.

Complainant claimed that as counsel for Hans and Vivian Busse, respondent had prepared a
memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease between the spouses Buss and
Hochstrasser, a Swiss national. Under said agreement, Hochstrasser would lease Vivian
Busse's property for fifty (50) years renewable for another fifty (50) years. Complainant
added that respondent had acted despite conflict of interest on his part since the Spouses
Buss and Hochstrasser were both his clients. Respondent prepared a similar agreement
and lease contract between spouses Busse and karl Emberger, a Swilss national over
another parcel of land in Cebu. This time the lease contract was for a period of forty nine
(49) years renewable for forty nine (49) years. All documents were notarized by
respondent. Under PD No. 471, aliens are prohibited from leasing private lands. He
knowingly indicated that the contract shall be enforced for forty nine (49) years instead of
twenty five (25) years.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Hontanosas is guilty of gross misconduct

Ruling:

In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorney's
Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost
sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to "obey the laws of the Philippines" this duty is
enshrined in the Lawyer's oath and in Canon 1, which provides that "(a) lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the law of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes." Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal systems."

The other canons o professional responsibility which respondent transgressed are the
following:

17
 CANON 15 - A Lawyer shall observe Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in all his Dealings
and Transactions with his clients.

Rule 15.07 - A Lawyer Owes Fidelity to the Cause of his Client and he shall be
Mindful of the Trust and Confidence reposed in him.

Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, is found guilty of violating the lawyer's oath and gross
misconduct. He is suspended from practice for six (6) months.

18
 A.C. 7815, July 23, 2009
Dolores Belleza, Complainant v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, Respondent.
(Canons 17, 18 and 19)

Facts:

This treats of the complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Dolores C. Belleza against
respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa for unprofessional and unethical conduct in connection
with the handling of criminal case involving complainant's son.

On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual
friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of legal services with the case of his son
Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen for alleged violation of RA 9165.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000 as acceptance fee which the respondent
endeavoured to produce in three (3) instalments. These were paid in full in a matter of one
(1) week thru his friend Joe Chua but Atty. Macasa did not issued a receipt. Another
amount of P18,000 was ask by respondent for supposedly posting of bail for provisional
liberty for her son but again he did not issue any receipt. However, it was later on
discovered that the same amount was not remitted to the court by respondent lawyer.
Despite of the demand to return the money, the respondent ignored her. Moreover,
respondent failed to act on the case of the complainant's son and complainant was forced
to avail the services of Public Attorney's Office for her son's defense.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes, he is not only guilty of dishonesty but also Code of Professional Responsibilities.
Respondent over took to defend the criminal case against complaint's son. Such
undertaking imposed upon him the following duties

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.

CANON 19 - A Lawyer shall represent his Client with Zeal within the Bounds of the
Law.

Wherefore, respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby found GUILTY not only of dishonesty
but also of professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Belleza's right to counsel

19
and to bail under Sections 13 and 14 (2) Article III of the Constitution and 19 and Rules
12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and for violating Canons 1,7,17,18 and 19 and Rules 12.03,
16.01,16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of the CPR. He is therefore DISBARRED from the practice of
law effective immediately.

20
 A.C. No. 5485 March 16, 2005
Elmer Canoy, Complainant v. Atty. Jose Max Ortiz, Respondent.
(Canon 18)

Facts:

Mr. Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former company, Coca
Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint was filed with the NLRC Bacolod City. Atty. Ortiz
appeared as counsel of Mr. Canoy in this proceeding. Mr. Canoy submitted all necessary
documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter,
he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz. Mr. Canoy decided to follow up
in NLRC. He was shocked to learned that his complaint was dismissed way back 1998 for
failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their position paper. Atty. Ortiz
informs the Court that he was catering indigent and low-income clients and at the same
time hosted a legal assistance show on the radio. Atty. Ortiz pursued on with his lifestyle
until his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, a victory. Ortiz claims that having prepared
the position paper of Mr. Canoy, but before he could submit the same, the Labor Arbiter
had already issued order dismissing the case. Atty. Ortiz admits though that the period
within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to
timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City,
'he was frankly preoccupied with both is functions as local government and as a practicing
lawyer. "His desire to help was beyond physical limitations," and he withdrew from his
other cases and his "free legal services."

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Ortiz should be suspended from the practice of law.

Ruling:

Yes, several of the Canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility guard
against the sort of conduct displayed by Atty. Ortiz with respect to the handling of Canoy's
case.

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 the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.

21
 CANON 22 - A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.

Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to his duty as counsel of
Canoy to attend to this legal matter entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes a
violation of Rule 18.03 of the CPR.

Wherefore, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same
negligence will be dealt with more severely.

22
 A.C. NO. 7298 June 25, 2007 (Formerly CBD Case No. 05-15650)
Fernando Martin O. Pena, Complainant v. Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio, Respondent.
(Canon 19)

Facts:

Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal
case before the NLRC. Sometime in August 2005, Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of
MOF Company Inc, received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the
NLRC for medication/conciliation conference. In the conference, respondent, in behalf of
his client, submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged dismissal.
Complainant rejected the claim as being baseless. Complainant sent notices to Hufana for
the latter to explain her absences and to return to work. in reply to return to work notice,
respondent wrote a letter to complainant reiterating his client's claim for separation pay.

The letter also contained the following threat to the company:

But if these are not paid on August 10 2005, we will constrained to file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of
cases and laws. In addition to other multiple charges like:

1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government
2. Criminal Charges of Tax Evasion.
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents.
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of law.

These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts as
settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Aparicio violates the CPR for writing a demand letter the contents of
which threatened complainant.

Ruling:

CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the
law.

Reminding legal practitioners that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his
conduct ought to and to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.

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

23
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
proceeding.

Under this rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless
criminal cases against the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the
lawyer's client.

While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment is
too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out
of his overzealousness to protect his client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate
penalty is reprimand.

Respondent Atty. Aparicio is hereby found liable for violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of
the CPR, and is accordingly meted out the penalty REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

24
 A.C. No. 9612 March 13, 2013
Johnny Pesto, Complainant v. Marcelito M. Millo, Respondent.
(Canon 18, Rule 18.03)

Facts:

Johnny Pesto (Johnny), a Canadian national, charged Atty. Marcelito M. Millo with conduct
unbecoming an officer of the Court, misleading his client, bungling the transfer of title, and
incompetence and negligence in the performance of his duty as a lawyer. In May 1990, his
wife Abella Pesto (Abella) retained the services of Atty. Millo to handle the transfer of title
over a parcel of land to her name, and the adoption of her niece, Arvi Jane Dizon. Johnny
and Abella gave to Atty. Millo the amounts of P14, 000 for the transfer of title and P10, 000
for the adoption case. Atty. Millo thereafter repeatedly gave them false information and
numerous excuses to explain his inability to complete the transfer of title and made them
believe that the capital gains tax for the property had been paid way back in 1991, but they
found out upon their return to the country in February 1995 that he had not yet paid the
tax. When they confronted him, Atty. Millo insisted that he had already said the same, but
he could not produce any receipt for the supposed payment. Atty. Millo then further
promised in writing to assume the liability for the accrued penalties

Exasperated by Atty. Millo/s neglect and ineptitude, Johnny brought this administrative
complaint in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In October 11, 2011 the IBP-
CBD, through Commissioner Victoria Gonzalez de los Reyes deemed the case submitted
for resolution. In October 4, 2010, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, to
whim the case had been meanwhile transferred, submitted a report and recommendation,
whereby he found Atty. Millo liable for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Millo is liable for the violation of Canon 18.

Ruling:

Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. He must be ever
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients. His duty to safeguard the
clients/ interests commences from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective
release by the clients. In that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and
exercise ordinary care as his clients/ interests may require without doubt, Atty. Millo had
the obligation to serve his clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, expressly so demanded of him, to wit:

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

25
 Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Atty. Millo claimed that his belated response to the charge was due to the assurances
of Abella that she would be withdrawing the complaint. The Court disbelieves him,
however, and treats his claim as nothing but a belated attempt to save the day for himself.
He ought to remember that the withdrawal of an administrative charge for suspension or
disbarment based on an attorney/s professional misconduct or negligence will not furnish
a ground to dismiss the charge. Suspension or disbarment proceedings that are warranted
will still proceed regardless of the lack or loss of interest on the part of the complainant. the
Court may even entirely ignore the withdrawal of the complaint, and continue to
investigate in order to finally determine whether the charge of professional negligence or
misconduct was borne out by the record. This approach bespeaks the Court/s consistent
view that the Legal Profession is not only a lofty and noble calling, but also a rare privilege
reserved only for the deserving. Atty. Millo made his situation even worse by consistently
absenting himself from the scheduled hearings the IBP had set for his benefit. His disregard
of the IBP/s orders requiring his attendance in the hearings was not only irresponsible, but
also constituted utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers. Such conduct was
absolutely unbecoming a lawyer, because lawyers are particularly called upon to obey
Court orders and processes.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. MARCELITO M. MILLO guilty of violating
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath;
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of six months effective from notice,
with the STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more
severely; ORDERS him to return to the heirs of Johnny and Abella Pesto within ten days
from notice the sum of P10,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the
finality of this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him to promptly submit to this
Court written proof of his compliance within thirty days from notice of this decision.

26
 A.C. NO. 9387, JUNE 20, 2012
Emilia R. Hernandez, Complainant v. Atty. Venancio B. Padilla, Respondent
(Rule 18.02, 18.03 and 18.04)

Facts:

The records show that Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in an
ejectment case filed against them by Duigan with the RTC which ruled in favor of
complainant. Hernandez appealed with Court of Appeals ordering them to file their
Appellants Brief. On their behalf, Atty. Venancio Padilla filed a Memorandum on Appeal
instead of an Appellants Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the
CA granted. A disbarment case was then filed by Emilia Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty.
Venancio B. Padilla, for negligence in the handling of her case. It was claimed that by
ignoring the resolution, the lawyer acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to
malpractice of law". It was also raised that when asked about the status of the appeal, Atty.
Padilla failed to inform them of the adverse decision. In his defense, respondent argued that
he was not the lawyer of complainant as he had never met the complainant. The
respondent claimed that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed
that it is this pleading which was required.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Padilla has neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by
improperly submitting a wrong motion.

Ruling:

Yes. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it
was respondents duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC
decisions. As a litigator, he was expected to know the proper procedure. Canon 5 of the
Code reads that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing
legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well
as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information
regarding the law and jurisprudence. The supposed lack of time given to respondent to
acquaint him with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the
Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation. While it is true that respondent was not complainants lawyer from the trial to
the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a
case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent
matters involved, as he was approached by complainants husband only two days before
the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent should have filed a
motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he
could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals. The failure of
respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment is negligence on his part. Under
18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the clients case. Lawyers

27
should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling
their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02,
18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

28
 A.C. No. 2797, October 4, 2002
Rosaura P. Cordon, Complainant v. Jesus Balicanta, Respondent.
(Canon 15 and 16)

Facts:

Complainant Rosauro Cordon, the widow of Felixberto Jaldon, inherited properties which
amounted to 21 parcels of land. The lawyer who helped her settle the estate of her late
husband was respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta.

Respondent enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that would
develop the said real properties into a highscale commercial complex with a beautiful
penthouse for complainant, which led to the Establishment of Rosaura Enterprises.
Balicanta was simultaneously the President/General Manager/ Treasurer. He made them
sign a document which turned out to be a voting trust agreement plus an SPA to sell and
mortgage some of the parcels of land which he transferred the titles of to a certain Tion Suy
Ong. Respondent never accounted for the proceeds of said transfers. Using a spurious
board resolution, he obtained a loan from Landbank in the amount of PHP 2.22M secured
by 9 of the parcels of land. The respondent ostensibly intended to use the money to
construct the Baliwasan Commercial Center (BCC, for brevity). Complainant later on found
out that the structure was made of poor materials such as sawali, coco lumber and bamboo
which could not have cost the corporation anything close to the amount of the loan
secured. He failed to pay a single installment on the loan and therefore LBP foreclosed. He
did not attempt to redeem, and sold the rights to redeem said property.

Complainant's daughter discovered that their ancestral home had been demolished and
that her mother was detained in a small nipa hut. With the help of an attorney Lim, she
found her mother. They terminated respondent's services and threatened him with legal
action.

Issue:

Whether respondent should be disbarred.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on the legal
profession. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means
to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him in trust by complainant and
her daughter.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society,
the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
6f the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those
enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in

29
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral
character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning. lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not
only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain
ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more
than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the
unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This
must be so because vast interests are committed to his care: he is the recipient of
unbounded trust and confidence: he deals with his clients property, reputation, his life, his
all.

Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession. He is bound to account for
all money or property collected or received for or from the client. The relation between an
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound to promptly
account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do
so constitutes professional misconduct.

30
 A.C. No. 5044 December 2, 2013
Felipe C. Dagala, Complainant, v.
Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. and Atty. Amado T. Adquilen, Respondents.
(Canon 17, Canon 18, Rule 18.03)

Facts:

On November 8, 1994 complainant, assisted by Atty. Quesada, filed before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, separation pay,
damages and attorneys fees against Capitol Allied Trading & Transport (Capitol) The said
case was, however, dismissed without prejudice for failure of complainant and Atty.
Quesada to appear during the two (2)scheduled mandatory conference hearings despite
due notice. Thereafter, complainant engaged the services of Atty. Adquilen, who re-filed his
labor case. Similarly, the case was dismissed without prejudice this time due to the parties
failure to submit their respective position papers. Complainant and Atty. Adquilen re-filed
the case for a third time on August 27, 1990. During its pendency, the representative of
Capitol purportedly offered the amount of P74, 000.00 as settlement of complainants
claim, conditioned on the submission of the latters position paper. Atty. Adquilen,
however, failed to submit one, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of interest
and failure to prosecute. Complainant, this time assisted by Atty. Imelda L. Picar, filed a
motion for reconsideration. However, the NLRC-NCR dismissed the same in a Resolution
for having been filed out of time, adding that the negligence of counsel binds the client due
to the foregoing, Atty. Picar sent separate letters to respondents, informing them that
complainant is in the process of pursuing administrative cases against them before the
Court. Atty. Quesada undertook to compensate the damages sustained by complainant in
consideration of the non-filing of an administrative complaint against him. Atty. Quesada,
however, reneged on his promise.

The Proceedings before the IBP

Investigating IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo, Jr. issued a Report and

Recommendation, finding hat respondents were grossly negligent in handling
complainants case in violation of Rule 18.03, Canon18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility Code. As such, he recommended that each of them be SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year. In view of Atty. Adquilens death prior to the
promulgation of this decision, the Court dismissed the case against him. Hence, what is left
for resolution is the complaint against Atty. Quesada.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in
handling complainants labor case.

31
Ruling:

Yes. The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP anent Atty. Quesadas
administrative liability.

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

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.

In the present case, the Court finds Atty. Quesada to have violated the foregoing Rules and
Canons. Primarily, Atty. Quesada failed to exercise the required diligence in handling
complainants case by his failure to justify his absence on the two (2) mandatory
conference hearings in NLRC Case No. RA-I-11-112394 despite due notice, which thus
resulted in its dismissal. It bears stressing that a retained counsel is expected to serve the
client with competence and diligence and not to sit idly by and leave the rights of is client
in a state of uncertainty. To this end, he is obliged to attend scheduled hearings or
conferences, prepare and file the required pleadings, prosecute the handled cases with
reasonable dispatch, and urge their termination without waiting for the client or the court
to prod him or her to do so.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01
of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and is accordingly SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

On the other hand, the administrative complaint respondent Atty. Amado Adquilen is
hereby DIMISSED in view of his supervening death.

32
 A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013
Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid.
(Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Lawyers Oath)

Facts:

Plaintiff brought his favorite Volkswagen beetle to a repair shop. Despite full payment, the
shop failed to repair the beetle. This prompted Julian to hire respondent Atty. Alcid, and
gave him P30,000 as attorneys fees and P10,000 as filing fees. Atty. Alcid sent a demand
letter, but the shop failed to return the payment. He filed an estafa case before the Quezon
City Prosecutors Office, which was then dismissed. He filed a motion for reconsideration.
This was denied for lack of merit. Atty. Alcid then presented the option of filing a case for
specific performance. Plaintiff gave another P10,000 for the filing fee. Despite repeated
attempts, plaintiff failed to see respondent Atty Alcid again. He learned that the case for
specific performance was dismissed. He also found out that the filing fee was only P2,440
and not P10,000, as earlier stated by Quintin. Julian filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) an administrative case against
Quintin for gross negligence.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross negligence.

Ruling:

Yes, the Court ruled that respondent, Atty. Alcid, committed professional negligence under
Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also violated Canon
17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and the Lawyers Oath. The Court held that a lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties, or an
odious deportment unbecoming an attorney. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in
probity and moral fibers which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the
Bar, but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein. The Court
stated that Atty. Alcid failed to serve his client with competence and diligence when he filed
a criminal case for estafa when the facts warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of
contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, respondent committed
another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before
the RTC. The complaint, having an alternative prayer for payment of damages, should have
been filed with the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over complainants claim
which amounts to only P36,000. Finally, respondent also violated Canon 17 of the Code
which states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him." The legal profession dictates that it is not a
mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and
fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The most thorough groundwork and study
must be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. The honor bestowed on
his person to carry the title of a lawyer does not end upon taking the Lawyers Oath and
signing the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor attaches to him for the entire duration of

33
his practice of law and carries with it the consequent responsibility of not only satisfying
the basic requirements but also going the extra mile in the protection of the interests of the
client and the pursuit of justice. Respondent has defied and failed to perform such duty and
his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and approving the
Decision of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED with a MODIFICATION
that respondent Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of gross misconduct for
violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as the Lawyers Oath. This Court hereby imposes upon respondent
the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS to
commence immediately upon receipt of this Decision. Respondent is further ADMONISHED
to be more circumspect and diligent in handling the cases of his clients, and STERNLY
WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.

34