1.

CANOY VS. ORTIZ

Topic:
Illegal Dismissal

Facts:
Res. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for petitioner Canoy for illegal dismissal case against the
latter’s former employer. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the complaint ordered the parties to
submit their respective position paper. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records
to respondent Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of such position paper. Thereafter, he made several
visit to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow up the progress of the case until 2000, but his visits was
unfruitful. Canoy decided to follow up the case himself, and was shocked to learn that the same
was actually dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute. The respondent claimed that "he was
frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing
lawyer. He withdrew from his cases and his free legal services."

Issue:
WON there is a grave misconduct and malpractice on part of the respondent.

Held:
Yes. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the
need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being
defended.
It was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to him.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 month and was sternly warned that a repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.

Rule 18.04
–
A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within
a reasonable period of time to the client’s request for information.

2.

BORJA VS SULYAP

Topic:
Private practice

Facts:
 Petitioner Borja, as lessor, and respondent Sulyap, Inc., as lessee, entered into a contract of lease
involving a one-storey office building owned by Borja located at New Manila, Quezon City. Respondent
paid advance rentals, association dues and deposits pursuant to lease. Upon the expiration of the
contract of lease, respondent demanded for the return of the same, but Borja refused to do so.
Thus, Sulyap filed with the RTC of QC a complaint for sum of money against Borja. Subsequently, both
parties entered into and submitted to the trial court a “Compromise agreements” stating that
Borja is bound to return the advances and deposit and in case any amount due not paid within the period
stated shall earn interest until fully paid plus the attorney’s fee. However, Borja failed to the
amounts stated. He then contended that there was fraud in the execution of the compromise
agreement when he was assisted by Atty. Cruz, who was then an employee of Quezon City
government, and that the agreement is void.

Issue:
WON the petitioner is bound by the penalty clause in the compromise agreement.

Held:
Yes. We find no merit in petitioner’s contention that the compromise agreement should
be annulled because Atty. Leonardo Cruz, who assisted him in entering into such agreement, was
then an employee of the Quezon City government, and is thus prohibited from engaging in the
private practice of his profession. Suffice it to state that the isolated assistance provided by Atty.
Cruz to the petitioner in entering into a compromise agreement does not constitute a prohibited
“private practice” of law by a public official. “Private practice” of a profession, specifically the
law profession does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a
succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one’s self to the public as
a lawyer. Such was never established in the instant case.

Wherefore, instant petition is denied.

3.

SCHULZ VS FLORES

Topic:
Negligence and incompetence

Facts:
Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992,
complainant Schulz engaged the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a complaint
against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for the latter’s failure to deliver the jeep which
he sold to Schulz. Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in acting upon his case
resulted in his being a defendant rather than a complainant. He also charged the respondent for
collective excessive and unreasonable fees. In support of his charges against the respondent, he
pointed out that he was a Municipal Judge of Negros Oriental who was dismissed from service
after the Marcos Regime.
Issue:
WON Atty. Flores is guilty of negligence and incompetence.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty. Marcelo Flores is found guilty of
negligence and incompetence, and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months
effective immediately. He is ordered to return to Schulz the amount of 12,000.00 plus legal interest,
and he is ordered to return the papers of complainant which had been under his custody as a
result of his counseling for the complainant.

4.

LE D E S M A V S
CLIMACO

Topic:
Counsel de oficio vs Election registrar job

Facts:
Prior to his appointment as election registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occ. on Oct 30, 1964, petitioner
was counsel de parte as an accused in a pending case in the sala of the respondent. Citing the
demands of his appointive post and the conflict that may arise between the discharge of
his duties as election registrar and officer of the court, petitioner moved to withdraw as counsel.
Respondent not only denied the motion, but appointed petitioner as counsel de oficio for the two
other accused. Petitioner now comes before the SC to have the order of the respondent judge
reversed on certiorari.

Issue:
WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Held:
NO. The principal reason behind respondent’s denial of the motion to withdraw of
petitioner is because of its effect to delay the case further. The criminal proceeding had already
been postponed several times, and to grant the petitioner’s motion would have been Tantamount
to a denial of the accused’s rights. The fact that the respondent already appointed the petitioner
as counsel de oficio other than the de parte, renders the latter’s excuse of the demand of his job
as registrar inutile. There is no reason for him to compromise the accused; defense for want of
time with the demands on the time of counsel de oficio is less than that of de parte. It is thus,
clear that petitioner is merely reluctant to represent the accused, membership in the Bar requires
the responsibility to live up to its exacting standard, which includes assisting the state when
called upon to administer justice, the law is not a trade or a craft, but a profession. As such, the
facts that petitioner will not be compensated for his trouble should not hinder him from defending the
accused to the best of his ability. The right of the accused to counsel is a constitutionally protected
right, such that any frustration thereof by petitioner amounts to a serious affront to the
profession. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is admonished.

5.

RE Y E S V S
VI T A N

Topic:
Violation of Responsibility

Facts:
Complainant hired the service of the respondent Atty. For the purpose of filing the
appropriate complaint or charge against the complainant’s sister-in-law and its niece. The
respondent after receiving the amount of P.17, 000 did not take any action on the complainant’s
case.

Issue:
WON respondent violated Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:
Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and did not inform
complainant the status of his case but also disregarded the orders of the Commission without
reasons which amounted to utter disrespect of authority and unethical conduct in the practice of
his profession, thus, should be sanctioned. Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six (6) months effective upon notice of this Decision. He is ordered to return
to complainant within five (5) days from notice the sum of P17, 000.00 with interest of 12% per
annum from the date of the promulgation of this Decision until the full amount shall have been
returned.
Rule 18.03
–
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, andhis 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 period of time to the client’s request for information.

6.
OL B E S V S
DECIEMBRE

Topic:
Suspension

Facts:
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan.
After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for
P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for
estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case
against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report,
Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
WON the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault.

Held:
Yes. Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.
It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess
good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly
circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement
of the quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.
“By taking the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian
of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity
in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. It is
also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by
his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite respondent’s full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the
checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document,
resorted to for his material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the
legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of
criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild.
His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-
up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.
Rule 1.01
–
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
7.
UI VS
BONIFACIO

Topic:
Immorality

Facts:
An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for
allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant,
Leslie Ui.

Issue:
WON she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from
the practice of law.

Held:
The respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. For instance, respondent
admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it
appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were
indeed unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent
and their first child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondent’s
allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid
marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly
immoral,: that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from
Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and
proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession Wherefore, complaint for disbarment against the respondent, for alleged immorality is
DENIED.

8.

NARIDO VS
LI N S A N G A N

Topic:
Championing the cause of the poor

Facts:
 Two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma
who represented adverse parties in a workmen’s compensation case, did mutually hurl
accusation at each other. The charge against respondent Linsangan filed by a certain Flora
Narido is that he violated the attorney’s oath by submitting a perjured statement. When required to
answer, not only did he deny the complaint but he would also hold respondent Risma accountable for
having instigating his client, the complainant, Flora Narido, tofile a false and malicious
complaint resulting in what respondent Linsangan called “embarrassment, humiliation and
defamation” of a brother in a profession.

Issue:
WON Complaint for instigating the client to file an administrative case against another
attorney will have merit

Held:
It seems unkind to allude evil motive to the attorney. It is perhaps more apt to state that
his missionary zeal to fight for the rights of his clients triggered him into filing the administrative
case. He should be admired for his dedication in championing the cause of the poor. His client is
a destitute woman. She needed every centavo of the award. To her, any delay in the payment
thereof meant grave injustice; it meant deprivation and starvation. Faced with the dilemma of his
client, the attorney had to rise to the challenge. In view of this, it is more in keeping with
Christian precept to say that it must have been the plight of his client- rather than his alleged
financial interest- that compelled him to advise his client to file the case against the other
attorney.

9.
BL A N Z A V S
ARCANGEL

Topic:
Volunteer / Photostat

Facts:
Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion askthis Court to take disciplinary action
against respondent Atty.Agustin Arcangel, who volunteered to be their counsel to file pension
claims, for professional non-feasance for:
(1) His failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for six years;
(2) His failure to immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him,
and
(3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all of her documents.
Respondent contended that the complainants failed to co-operate and pay for Photostat services,
and explained that there were no agreement for his compensation as their counsel.

Issue:
WON respondent can be held liable.
Held:
No. Complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their respective claims for their
failure to cooperate and pay for the Photostat services. But while we are constrained to dismiss the
charges against respondent for being legally insufficient, yet we cannot but counsel agains this
actuations as a member of the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community
than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily
a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, per force, be par
excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services.
Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants
wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate,
respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping
them hanging indefinitely. x xx let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the high
standards of his chosen profession require of him. Accordingly, the case against respondent is
dismissed. So ordered.

10.

OP E R A L V S
AB A R I A

Topic:
Liability

Facts:
This administrative proceeding was started by Pedro Operal, Sr., who identified himself
as a pauper in his complaint filed with this Court on August 27, 1970 against respondent Dominador
Abaria, a member of the Philippine Bar. The charge was that respondent, whose services were
retained to assist complainant recover damages from his employer for injuries suffered, acted
dishonestly. Apparently, a settlement was reached, complainant having been made to sign a receipt in the
sum of P500.00 for his claim, out of which was deducted P55.00 as attorney's fees, when the
truth, according to the complaint, was that respondent did receive the much larger amount of P5,000.00. He
accounted for the alleged sum of P5, 000.00 by stating that P3, 500 was spent by the employer for plaintiff's
operation and medical bills, another P1, 000.00 given to complainant's family during his confinement in
the hospital, and then the P500.00received in cash by way of additional settlement. He prayed that the
complaint be dismissed. However, when investigated, Operal admitted that the administrative
charge arose out of a misunderstanding between him and respondent.

Issue:
WON the respondent can be held liable.

Held:
No. While it would appear that under the circumstances no case lies against respondent
Dominador Abaria, it is not amiss to impress on members of the Bar that the utmost care be taken to
minimize occasions for any misunderstanding between them and their clients. The relationship
being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the latter being adequately and fully
informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is defended. They should not be left in
the dark. They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of why certain steps are taken and why certain matters
are either included or excluded from the documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that
their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
The same should characterize a lawyer's efforts as when he is defending the rights of property.
As it is, there is even the fear that a lawyer works harder when he appears for men of substance.
To show how unfounded is such a suspicion, he must exert his utmost, whoever be his client. At
any rate, with complainant having been satisfied with the explanation of respondent, he could not
be justly charged of being recreant to his trust for personal gain. The dismissal of this case is
therefore warranted. Petition is dismissed.