Canon 15
02 of CPR by
CASE 63 PNB v Cedo
Facts:
1. Atty. Cedo worked in PNB as an Assistant Vice president.
2. Atty. Cedo was sued by PNB because after his employment
was terminated by PNB, He served as counsel for a case
against PNB, (Siy vs. PNB) WHERE he intervened and
participated in the transaction between PNB and Atty.
Cedo’s new client.
3. Atty. Cedo, said he only appeared as counsel in the only with
respect to the execution pending appeal of the roc decision
and he did not participate in the litigation before the trial
court ( RTC)
4. So PNB sued him for violation of Cannon 15 and RULES
15.02.
5. Also in another instance, Atty. Cedo , during his employment
in PNB participated drafting demand letter to a certain
Almeda, but then when a civil case ensued and he was not
working in PNB anymore, the law firm where he was a
senior partner, served as counsel to Almeda.
6. Atty. Cedo denied participation with respect to the case of
Almeda, averting that it was Atty. Ferrer, his partner in the
firm, who handled the case.
7. Atty. Cedo, also stated that they are not a general
partnership Each one of them handles their own cases
independently and individually receives the revenues
therefrom which are not shared among them
8. NOTE : A general partnership is harmful to a client because
the clients secrets might be spread to people who work
within the general partnership, such as lawyers and staff
working there.
ISSUE: W/N Respondent lawyer violated Rule 15.
engaging into a general partnership with other lawyers.
RULING : YES, suspended for 3 years effectively immediately
RATIO:
It is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Rule 15.02) since the client’s secrets and confidential records
and information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff
members at all times.
From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part
of Atty. Cedo to devise ways and means to attract as the former
clients of PNB ( who subsequently filed a case against PNB )
since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of
PNB ( because he worked there before ) , a convincing factor for
the said clients to seek his professional service.
In sum, the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his
ethics in consideration of the money he expected to earn.
Canon’s violated​: Canon 15, 15.02
CASE 64: Quiambao v Bamba
Facts: Canon’s violated: Canon 15, 15.03, 1, 1.02
1. Quiambao, was the president and managing director of
Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned
corporation engaged in providing security and investigation
services.
2. She procured the legal services of the Atty. Bamba not only
for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal
ejectment case against ​Spouses Santiago and Torroba.
3. That after after she resigned as AIB president, or in June
2001, Bamba filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin
and damages against Quiambao before the MeTC of Quezon
 City for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB
assigned to her as a service vehicle (during her
employment)
4. He did this without withdrawing as counsel of record in the
ejectment case of Quiambao against ​Spouses Santiago and
Torroba ​, which was then still pending
5. Furthermore, Atty. Bamba assisted her in the formation of
another security agency, Quiambao Risk Management
Specialists, Inc., (QRMSI), which was later registered under
Quiambao’s name, with Atty. Bamba as a "silent partner”
6. That while serving AIB and QRMSI, Atty. Bamba convinced
complainant’s brother Leodegario Quiambao to organize
another security agency.
7. The security agency was called San Esteban Security
Services, Inc. (SESSI) where Atty. Bamba served as its
incorporator, director, and president.
8. Atty. Bamba admitted being the legal counsel of the
complainant in the ejectment case and likewise as AIB’s legal
counsel against her in the replevin case but avers that the
cases were unrelated cases involving different issues and
parties.
9. Atty. Bamba however denies being a silent partner of QRMSI
10. That SESSI was created to complement AIB, which was
endanger of collapse.
11. He serves AIB and SESSI in different capacities: as legal
counsel of the former and as president of the latter.
ISSUES :
1. W/N Bamba is guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of
the legal profession? YES
2. What is the test for to determine if there is conflict of
interest?
RULING: YES, he violated rule 15.03, and he is suspended from
the practice of law for 1 year.
RATIO :
1. Rule 15.03, Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
"A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts."
This prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the
lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case.
The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to
keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.
2. The test for to determine if there is conflict of interest is :
(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 client.
(2) 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 he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through
their connection.
In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent filed
the replevin case on behalf of AIB he was still the counsel of
record of the complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do
not sustain respondent’s theory that since the ejectment case
and the replevin case are unrelated cases fraught with different
issues, parties, and subject matters, the prohibition is
inapplicable.
His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though
unrelated, ​obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the
least, invites suspicion of double-dealing.
While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly
consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case,
the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to
both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of
the complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the process of determining whether there is a conflict of
interest, ​an important criterion is probability, not certainty,
of conflict.
Since the respondent has financial or pecuniary interest in SESSI,
which is engaged in a business competing with his client’s, and,
more importantly, he occupies the highest position in SESSI, one
cannot help entertaining a doubt on his loyalty to his client AIB.
This kind of situation passes the second test of conflict of
interest, which is whether the acceptance of a new relationship
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.
CASE 65: Dr. Teresita Lee v Atty. Simando
FACTS: ​Canon’s violated: Canon 15, 15.01, 21.01
1. Atty. Simando was the counsel on retainer of complainant
Dr. Lee with a monthly retainer fee of Php3,000.00.
2. Atty. Simando asked Dr. Lee if she could loan a person
named Mejorado money
3. Mejorado is another client of Atty. Simando albeit in a case
claiming rewards against the Bureau of Customs
4. Dr. Lee issued various cash loans amounting to P1,400,000
5. When the obligation became due, Mejorado didn’t pay them
6. Atty. Simando was reminded that he’s a co-maker to the loan
which Atty. Simando.
7. Dr. Lee Hired a new lawyer Atty. Gilbert Morandarte.
8. Dr. Lee, sent a demand letter dated to Atty. Simando in his
capacity as the co-maker of some of the loans of Mejorado.
9. He denied all the allegations and further asserted that there
were novations to the loans that were done without his
consent. Like the alleged additional investment & 1
Silverado Pick-up & 50 old clothing sacks.
10. He further alleged that Dr. Lee is engaged in lending money
at a high interest rate ( usurious )
11. That Dr. Lee gave Mejorado a total of Php700,000.00 as an
investment
12. But Mejorado signed as co-maker in all the receipts showing
double the amount or Php1,400,000.00.
13. So although what was only given was only 700k, it was made
to look in the receipts that he received 1.4 million.
14. A case was filed where Atty. Simando semando appeared as
counsel for
ISSUE:
1. W/N the respondent committed a violation of CPR 15.01
2. Did he have knowledge of the conflict of interest? YES
HELD: ​YES, he is suspended for 6 months
1. The Test of Conflict of Interest.
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a
lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest:
1. One test is 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 client. Thus, if a
lawyer's argument for one client has to be opposed by
that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is
a violation of the rule.
2. Another test of inconsistency of interests is 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. And another test is whether the 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.
In the instant case, he violated the test above because he signs as
co-maker for the loan knowing that there is a conflict of interest
between the 2 parties as debtor and creditor to each other where
he was the counsel of both.
2. Yes, he did have knowledge of the conflict of interest, as
evidenced by the following ?
(a) failed to act on Mejorado's failure to pay his obligation to
complainant despite the latter's instruction to do so;
(b) denied liability despite signing as co-maker in the
receipts/promissory notes arising from the loan agreement
between his two clients;
(c) rebutted complainant's allegations against Mejorado and
him, and even divulged informations he acquired while he
was still complainant's lawyer.
THEREFORE, it is clearly improper for respondent to appear as
counsel for one party (complainant as creditor) against the
adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who is also his client, since a
lawyer is prohibited from representing conflicting interests. He
may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as
counsel for a person whose interest conflict with that of his
present or former client.
CASE 66: Santos v Beltran
FACTS:
1. Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas
Rodriguez had ten children.
2. After the death of Filomeno, Benita donated their two
residential lots, including the ancestral house situated
thereon, in favor of the nine children, except Atty. Rogelio
Santos ( Rogelio) ( complainant ).
3. Atty. Beltran lawyer Beltran notarized the Deed of Donation.
4. Then Benita Rodriguez died. Rogelio and his brother,
Alberto , were appointed administrators in the intestate
proceeding for the settlement of the spouses’ estate.
5. Rogelio file criminal case against Atty. Beltran and his 9
siblings for falsification of documents.
1. Atty. Beltran served as counsel for himself and the other
siblings
2. Atty. Beltran said appeared to only defend himself, that he
didn’t ask for any compensation.
3. Subsequently, there was an ejectment case ( Civil Case No.
12105 ) filed by ​Erlinda (one of the children ) ​regarding
the same properties and ​Atty. Beltran served as the counsel
FOR HER.
4. The respondents in this were benito and Rogelio santos.
5. After sometime Atty. Beltran also acted as defense counsel of
Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil
Case No. 14823[10] for ejectment ​filed by Rogelio Santos
on behalf of Erlinda R. Santos involving the same
property.
6. He emphasized that the decision in Civil Case No. 12105 had
long been executed, thus the attorney-client relationship
between him and Erlinda Santos-Crawford was also
terminated.
ISSUE​: W/N Respondent violated the canon 15.03 CPR?
RULING​: YES. He is suspended for one year effective
immediately.
SC reiterated the Test of Conflict of Interest.
In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by
Erlinda Santos- Crawford against complainant and Renato
Santos.
Respondent-Beltran, however appeared as counsel for Evalyn
Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No.
14823 for ejectment filed by complainant as attorney-in-fact of
Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No. 14823, although litigated
by Rogelio, was actually brought in behalf of and to protect the
interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford.
Atty. Beltran act of representing the parties against whom his
other client, Erlinda Santos-Crawford, filed suit constituted
conflict of interest.
WHEREFORE​, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY
of representing conflicting interests and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately.
Respondent is further STERNLY WARNED that a commission of
the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
CASE 67: Daging v Davis
FACTS​: Canon’s violated: Canon 15, 15.03
1. Daging was the owns and operates Nashville Country Music
Lounge.
2. Daging lease the space from Pinlac
3. Daging entered into a Retainer Proposal with ​Davis &
Sabling Law Office
4. Atty, davis was one of the attorney who signed the retainer
agreement.
5. Dating not able to pay his rental fees on time( he was
described as a delinquent renter )
6. So, Pinlac terminated the lease.
7. Pinlac and Novie Balageo (Balageo) inventoried all
equipment and took over the operation of the bar under the
name, Amarillo Music Bar.
8. Daging filed an ejectment case against Balageo and Pinlac
9. And although there was still a retainer agreement between
Atty. Davis and Daging, Atty. Davis appeared counsel for
Balageo
10. Respondent maintained that he never obtained any
knowledge or information regarding the business of ​Daging
who used to consult only Atty. Sabling ( the other partner ) .
11. Atty. Davis admitted though having represented Balageo in
the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the
Retainer Agreement between ​Daging and Davis and Sabling
Law Office.
ISSUE​: W/N Davis violated canon 15.03 of the CPR?
RULING​: YES, he was given a 6 MOS SUSPENSION.
- It is undisputed that complainant entered into a Retainer
Agreement dated March 7, 2005 with respondent's firm.
- This agreement was signed by the Atty. Davis and attached to
the rollo of this case.
- And during the subsistence of said Retainer Agreement, Atty.
Davis represented and defended Balageo, who was impleaded
as one of the defendants in the ejectment case complainant
filed before the MTCC of Baguio City.
- In fact, Atty. Davis filed on behalf of said Balageo ​an Answer
with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction ​dated July 11, 2005.
It was only on August 26, 2005 when respondent withdrew his
appearance for Balageo.
- Atty. Davis argues that while complainant is a client of Davis &
Sabling Law office, her case is actually handled only by his
partner Atty. Sabling.
- He was not privy to any transaction between Atty. Sabling and
complainant and has no knowledge of any information or
legal matter complainant entrusted or confided to his law
partner.
- He thus proposed that he could not have taken advantage of
an information obtained by his law firm by virtue of the
Retainer Agreement. The SC was not having it, they were not
impressed.
CASE 68 : Gonzalez vs. Cabucana
FACTS:
1. Gonzales employ the legal services of the law firm
CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW
OFFICE.
2. In her case for a collection of money.
3. Atty. Cabucana was handling the case.
4. Gonzalez won the case, and was to awarded with P17,310.00
with interest and P6,000.00 as attorney’s fees
5. ( Sheriff ) Gatcheco, was the person entrusted to implement
the writ of execution, but he failed to do so.
6. So Gonzalez filed a complaint against Gatcheco.
7. Gatcheco together with his wife went to the house of
Gonzalez
8. They harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute ​an
affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint​.
9. Gonzales thereafter filed against the Gatchecos criminal
cases for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation,
simple coercion and unjust vexation;
10. Cabucana’s law firm was still representing Gonzales,
11. BUT CABUCANA still represented the Gatchecos in the cases
filed by Gonzales.
12. Gonzales wanted Atty. Cabucana disbarred because he
violated the lawyer -client relationship between them
13. Atty. Cabucana alleged that he never appeared and
represented of such case since it was his brother, Atty.
Edmar Cabucana who appeared and represented Gonzales in
said case.
14. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his
wife in the cases filed against them but claimed that his
appearance is pro bono and they asked him to take the case
because no other counsel was willing to take their case.
ISSUES:
1. WON, Cabucano violate article 15.03 ? YES
2. Did the court consider other things? YES
FACTS:
RULING : FINED the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00)
with a STERN WARNING
1. Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
CPR. It is well-settled that lawyer is barred from
representing conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy
and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is
one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Lawyers
are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented
Gonzales in the civil case. ​Such being the case, the rule against
representing conflicting interest applies.
2. ​The court considers however as mitigating circumstances the
fact that :
1. he is representing the Gatcheco pro bono.
2. it was his firm who personally which handled the civil
case of Gonzales not him.
3. it was observed that there was no malice and bad faith in
respondent’s acceptance of the Gatchecos’ cases as
shown by the move of complainant to withdraw the case.
ISSUES:
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR and taking
consideration of mitigating
CASE 69: Orola vs. Ramos
1. There was a settlement of estate between Emilio (the
initially appointed administrator of Trinidad’s estate) ,
Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio.
2. Atty. Ramos was collaborative counsel for the Heirs of
Antonio
3. Emilio was voted out as administrator of the estate.
4. Then Atty. Ramos represented Emilio in the same case
and moved for the reconsideration of the motion that
ousted Emilio as the administrator.
5. Heirs of Antonio filed a case against him for violation of
Rule 15. 03, for representing conflict of interests
6. Heirs of Antonio stated that although the wife of
Trinidad, ​Maricar​, allowed Atty. Ramos to withdraw as
counsel it was only after Atty. Ramos has already
appeared as collaborative counsel for the other party.
7. Atty. Ramos, states that he never appeared as counsel for
the Heirs of Antonio ( which was true ) because he was
unable to attend the hearing due to scheduling
constraints, and he would only appear temporarily if ever
he had to, this was as a favor to ​Maricar​.
8. But the truth was that although he did not serve as
counsel for all the Heirs of Antonio Atty. Ramos did
reserve as counsel for one of them a woman named
Karen.
9. IBP found Atty. Ramos was found guilty of representing
conflicting interests only with respect to Karen, as the
records of the case show that he never acted as counsel
for the other complainants.
1. WON, there was a violation of Rule 15.03 ? YES
2. What is conflict of interest ?
 3. What is the reason for the lowering of the penalty?
RULING: reduced the recommended period of suspension to
three (3) months.
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
The reason for this violation is that he initially represented
Karen who is part of the Heirs of Antonio in a special proceeding,
and then switched to the other party in the case ( Emilio )
2. In Hornilla v. Salunat 28 (Hornilla), the Court explained the
concept of conflict of interest, to wit:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The
test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty
to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues
for the other client.
3. These are the following reasons:
1. it was his first time offense
2. It is undisputed that Atty. Ramos merely accommodated
Maricar’s request out of gratis ( pro bono ) to temporarily
represent her
3. Confidential information was not used by Atty. Ramos to
prejudice his former clients
CASE 70 : Lydia Castro
FACTS: this case is mother and daughter against mother and
daughter and the case arose out of the same transaction.
1. Justo availed of the services of Atty. Galing
2. Atty. Galing drafted a demand letter for Justo against Koa
for the payment of the checks that KOA ISSUED.
3. Koa still did to pay.
4. So Justo filed a case for Violation of BP 22 against Koa
5. Then Koa filed a motion for consideration and it was filed
by respondent Atty. Galing on behalf of the Koa and her
daughter.
6. Justo filed a case against Atty. Galing for representing a
conflict of interest because she filed the motion of
consideration on behalf of Koa.
7. Atty. Galing said he did not represent Justo, he just made
the demand letter as a act of friendship between the two
and not as a means of professional business.
8. Atty. Galing, did not even receive attorney’s fees for the
sevice rendered.
9. Also Atty. Galing stated that his filing of the motion for
consolidation is not an adversarial proceeding, and since
all the parties in this case are ​long standing friends he
merely acted as a moderator or arbiter of the parties,
not as a counsel.
ISSUES:
1. WON he violated Cannon 15 and Rule 15.03? YES
2. What is the nature of the attorney-client relationship ?
RULING:YES there was a violation and he is suspended for one
year.
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
- ​
The reason for the violation is that there was a attorney and
client relationship because in the demand letter made by Atty.
Galing, He referred to complainant Justo as “ ​my client “ in
the demand letter sent to the defaulting debtor
- Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not
exculpate respondent from liability. ​Absence of monetary
consideration does not exempt lawyers from liability
when they pursue cases with conflicting interests
2. The nature of the attorney-client relationship is, therefore, ​one
of trust and confidence of the highest degree​.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice
Canon 16
CASE # 71 : UNITY FISHING VS ATTY. MACALINO
Facts: ​A lawyer misappropriated money from his client.
1. Atty. Danilo Macalino was hired to represent ​Frabal Fishing
and Ice Plant Corporation against ​Wheels Distributor,
Inc.
2. Frabal ​was eventually ​bought by Unity Fishing Development
Corporation ​during the pendency of the case.
3. Unity Fishing was evicting Wheels Distributor from their
property.
4. Macalino, as counsel, advised the Unity Fishing to severe all
contractual relationship with Wheels Distributor and return
their security deposit amounting to P50,000.
5. Macalino volunteered to take the check to return their
security deposit) to Wheels Distributor himself.
6. Later, another lawyer was hired to replace Macalino and the
case of Unity Fishing against Wheels Distributor was
eventually settled.
7. But Unity Fishing was shocked to learn that Wheels
Distributor never got the P50,000 security deposit.
8. After an investigation, Unity Fishing discovered that the
check was deposited to Macalino's account and he was
actually the one who withdrew the money.
Issues:
1. Which provision of the Code of Ethics did Atty. Macalino
violate?
2. What were SC’s comments?
Ruling: ​SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year effective immediately,
Atty. Macalino violated Canon 16, Rule 16.1, Rule 16.2, Rule 16.3
2. It is clear, therefore, that respondent, by depositing the check
in his own account and subsequently deceiving his client into
believing that he delivered the same to Wheels is undoubtedly
guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical
behavior. He caused dishonor, not merely to himself but to the
noble profession to which he belongs. For, it cannot be denied
that the respect of litigants to the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust
and confidence.[20] Like judges, lawyers must not only be clean;
they must also appear clean. This way, the peoples faith in the
justice system remains undisturbed.[21]
Case 72: Spouses Concepcion v. Dela Rosa
Facts:
1. Dela Rosa served as retained lawyer and counsel of the
spouses for several matter including idea of opening a
pawnshop but this did not prosper.
2. Since Dela Rosa knew that the spouses had money intact
said their failed venture,he borrowed P2,500,000,
3. He promised to pay, with interest, 5 days after.
4. Trusting their lawyer, they issued 3 EastWest Bank
checks tamounting to P2.5M
5. 5 days later, Dela Rosa failed to pay. Spouses made
multiple demands but Dela Rosa merely made repeated
promises to pay soon.
6. After a second demand letter, Dela Rosa denied
borrowing money. Instead, he claimed that, Jean Charles
Nault, one of his other clients, was the real debtor.
7. Souses maintained that they extended the loan to Dela
Rosa alone, as evidenced by the checks issued in the his
name and that they did know Nault.
8. Nault filed as third-party defendant and denied the
allegation made against him.
9. IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty
of violating Rule 16.04, Canon 16, and Canon 7 and
recommended that Dela Rosa be disbarred and return
the P2,500,000.00 with stipulated interest (5%
monthly).
10. IBP Governors approved but reduced the penalty to
indefinite suspension and ordered the return of the
P2,500,000.00 with legal interest, instead of stipulated
interest.
Issue: W/N respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR.
Ruling:
1. SC agrees with the IBP but modified the penalty. SC
reduced it to 3-year suspension and ruled that
recommended return of the money lies beyond the ambit
of an administrative case.
Administrative cases are only concerned with whether
the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue
as a member of the Bar and should not involve his civil
liability for money received from his client in a
transaction not intrinsically linked to his professional
engagement.
2. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with trust and confidence which is prone to
abuse.
 3. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from
his client is to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage
of his influence over his client.
4. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the
lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to
renege on his obligation.
5. In Frias v. Atty. Lozada, SC declared that a lawyer's act of
asking a client for a loan is unethical and considered as
abuse of client's confidence.
6. By borrowing money and for refusing to pay, Dela Rosa
abused the trust and confidence of clients, and failed to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Canon 16
Case 73: Lemoine v. Balon
Facts:
1. Daniel Lemoine is a French national who filed an
insurance claim with Metropolitan Insurance Company
for his lost car. This was rejected at first by Metropolitan.
2. His friend, Jesus Garcia, arranged the engagement of
Atty’s Balon’s services to assist Lemoine in his claim
3. Balon was charging Lemoine 25% of the actual amount to
be recovered. Lemoine never agreed to such fee.
4. Since Lemoine was leaving the country, Balon had him
sign an undated SPA authorizing him to bring any action
against Metropolitan Insurance
5. Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle the claim and
Balon confirmed his acceptance of the offer
6. Metropolitan issued a Chinabank check payable to
Lemoine in the amount of P250,000 which was received
by Balon
7. When Lemoine asked Balon for updates, Balon said that
Metropolitan was offering P350,000 for settlement.
Lemoine told Balon to accept the amount.
8. Later, Lemoine came back to the Phils and went to the
office of Metropolitan. There he found out that the claim
has been long settled.
9. Balon acknowledge that he has the check and that he is
keeping it as attorney’s lien pending payment of his
attorney’s fees now equivalent to 50% of the entire
amount collected.
10. He also threatened Lemoine that he will not hesitate to
go to Immigration, DOLE, and BIR to sue Lemoine if he
will not pay.
11. IBP Investigating Comm recommended disbarment and
to turn over P475,000 (P525,000 insurance claim less
professional fees P50,000)
12. IBP Governors recommended 6-month suspension and to
turn over the amount of P525,000.00
Issue: W/N Balon violated the CPR
Ruling:
1. Yes, he is GUILTY of malpractice, deceit and gross
misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer
and he is hereby DISBARRED and ordered to turn over
P525,000.00 within thirty 30 days from notice.
2. Balon violated Rule 1.01, Canon 15, Rule 15.06, Canon 16,
Rules 16.01-16.03, Canon 17, Rule 18.04, Rule 21.02.
3. Canon 16 bears on the principal complaint of
complainant, a lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that he may come to possess.
 4. Canon 16 requires an atty to render an accounting of all
money or property received for or from the client as well
as delivery of the funds or property to the client when
due or upon demand
5. In case of disagreement as to fees, or when the client
finds the amount as unconscionable, the lawyer must not
arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the
payment of his fees.
6. Here, he never had the slightest attempt to bring the
matter for judicial determination. Rather, he stubbornly
and in bad faith held onto the funds to force Lemoine to
agree to the amount of attorney's fees sought.
Case 74: De Chavez-Blanco v. Lumasag
Facts: Note: This is already the resolution after being remanded
by the Court to the IBP as you will see in fact no. 3
1. Nelia de Chavez-Blanco filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr., for deceit dishonesty and
gross misconduct.
2. IBP Commissioner found respondent guilty of the
charges and recommended disbarment
3. Subsequently, IBP Governors reduced the penalty to a
5-year suspension. However, the Court found that no
formal hearing or investigation was conducted and
remanded the case to the IBP.
4. Upon investigation, it was found that De Chavez-Blanco
(Blanco) and her husband, both based in the US, owned 2
adjacent parcels of land in Quezon City, each with an area
of 400 sqm
5. Blanco authorized Lumasag, her husband's first cousin, to
sell said lots
6. Lumasag reported that he had sold only one lot for
P320,000, where he he deducted P38,130.00 for taxes
and commission. The remainder, he claims to have
remitted to the spouses
7. A few years later, Mario Blanco, the husband, discovered
that the 2 lots had been sold on for P1,120,000
8. So, Blanco, through Atty. Muñoz, sent a demand letter to
Lumasag to remit the entire proceeds of the sale
9. Lumasag admitted the sale of the properties but still did
not remit P838,100.00 (P278,000.00 for the first parcel
of land and P560,000.00 for the second)
10. Lumasag claims that only one lot has been paid at
P281,980, which he immediately remitted. And that
payment for the 2nd lot was withheld, pending the
relocation of the squatters on the said lot
11. IBP commissioner found that indeed the two lots were
sold but only for P560,000, not P1,120,000.
12. That Instead of representing that two lots had been sold,
he only represented that only one was sold for P320,000
and pocketed the balance of P240,000.00.
13. IBP recommended that, because Lumasag was already 72
years old, he be meted out the penalty of suspension of
one 1-year suspension, instead of 5 as previously decided
Issue: W/N respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR
Ruling:
1. SC agrees with the findings of the IBP, but reduced the
penalty to 6-month suspension and ordered him to
deliver P240,000 plus legal interest rate of 6% annually
 2. SC finds the suspension of 2 years is too severe
considering his advanced age. Especially since
suspension is not primarily intended as punishment, but
as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.
3. Clearly, Lumasag committed dishonesty and abused the
confidence of the spouses
4. Lumasag took advantage of the absence of complainants
from the Philippines by deceitfully informing them that
he had sold only one lot
Canon 17
Case 75: Rosacia v. Atty. Bulalacao
Facts:
1. Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia was president of Tacma,
Phils., Inc. who filed for Bulalacao’s disbarment
2. June 1, 1990. Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as
retained counsel of a corporation by the name of Tacma
Phils., Inc
3. October 31, 1990. The lawyer-client relationship
between of the parties was severed as shown by another
agreement
4. After 9 months from termination, several employees of
Tacma consulted Bulalacao for the purpose of filing an
action for illegal dismissal.
5. Bulalacao agreed to handle the case for the said
employees by filing a complaint before the NLRC and
appearing in their behalf
6. Even Bulalacao admits that he "did commit an act
bordering on grave misconduct, if not outright violation
of his attorney's oath."
7. He pleads for the Court's compassion to reduce the IBP
recommended 3-month suspension to either fine or
admonition because:
a. that he is new in the profession (he was a lawyer
for only a year whent the infraction was made)
b. that his suspension will deprive his family of its
only source of livelihood
c. that he has fully realized his mistake and the
gravity of his offense
d. that he has already inhibited and withdrawn his
attorney-client relationship with the employees
of Tacma
e. and that he pledges not to commit the same
mistake
Issue: W/N Bulalacao breached his oath of office for representing
the employees of his former client
Ruling:
1. Yes, SC agreed with IBP. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 3-months.
2. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case
he represented him but also after the termination of the
relationship.
3. No opportunity must be given attorneys to take
advantage of the secrets of clients he obtained.
Otherwise, people will lose confidence in the legal
profession.
4. This is why Bulalacao’s plea for leniency cannot be
granted. Because he is new, then the teachings of Legal
Ethics mjst still be fresh in his mind.
 5.
Case 76: Lorenzana Food Corp. v. Daria
Facts:
1. Lorenzana Food Corp (LFC) charged Atty. Daria of
negligence and betrayal of his former client's confidence.
2. Atty. Daria was hired by LFC as its legal counsel and was
eventually designated as its personal manager.
3. During his employment with LFC, he was involved in two
labor cases:
a. Hanopol case (Illegal dismissal case against LFC) -
For failure to appear in two consecutive hearings
and to submit a position paper in the Hanopol
case which resulted in complainant LFC's default
and judgment against it by the Labor Arbiter, the
respondent is faulted for negligence.
1st absence: Atty. Daria claims that Hanopol
should have seen him in his office to work out a
compromise agreement but did not.
2nd absence: Atty. Daria claimed that he had
another hearing on the same date and that he told
his secretary to call up the Office of the Labor
Arbiter to have the hearing of the Hanopol case
postponed.
b. San Juan case - San Juan is an employee of LFC
who was accused of double liquidation and
unliquidated cash advances. While still in LFC,
Daria was part of the team who investigated the
charges against San Juan and even sanctioned
him with preventive suspension. When San Juan
resigned, he sought the services of Atty. Daria
who in turn prepared and signed San Juan's
counter-affidavit against LFC.
4. As a final defense, Atty. Daria claims that since he was
able to persuade the NLRC on appeal to set aside the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter and to remand the case for
further proceedings, then the charge of negligence should
be considered moot and academic.
Issue: W/N respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating the CPR
Ruling:
1. Atty. Daria is suspended for 6 months for being guilty of
both the charge of negligence, a transgression of Rule
18.03, Canon 18, and the charge of betrayal of his former
client's confidences, in violation of Canon 17.
2. The setting aside of the adverse Decision of the Labor
Arbiter cannot erase the effects of Atty. Daria’s
negligence. Had he attended the hearings and filed the
required position paper, then at least, there would have
been no delay in the resolution of the case, which
probably would have been in favor of LFC.
3. He also betrayed LFC's confidence in violation of the then
Canon 37 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, now
Canon 17 is assisting San Juan in his counter-affidavit.
4. An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case
in which he has represented him but also after
termination of such relationship
Canon 18
Case 77: Spouses Adecer v. Akut
Facts:
1. Akut represented the spouses in the criminal case where
they were charged for violating Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code (Other Deceits)
2. March 25, 1997. Akut received a copy of the MTCC's
Decision convicting the spouses. Such decision was
served in the absence of the spouses.
3. Akut has 15 days from 25 March 1997 to file either an
appeal or a petition for probation but did not do so until
over a month later when the decision had already
become final and executory.
4. A warrant of arrest was issued against the spouses and
were incarcerated.
5. Teresita Adecer claimed that when she got the decision,
she contacted Akut but he was out of town. So, while paid
for the civil indemnity awarded in the decision to avail of
probation.
6. Petition for Probation was denied for being filed beyond
the period for filing an appeal.
7. Akut blames his clients for the denial of the appeal, that
they failed to comply with an agreement that they go to
Akut's office to discuss the steps to be taken should they
receive an adverse decision.
8. Akut also claims that he was out of town during the
15-day period to file an appeal, but was still able to
attend some hearings that he considered “more
important.”
9. Lastly, he claims that he looking for faith healers to cure
the brain tumor of his wife, who later on died.
10. IBP Investigator recommended 1 month suspension and
admonishment
11. IBP Governors increased it to 6 months
Issue: W/N Akut violated the principles of legal ethics for filing
the Petition for Probation beyond the reglementary period.
Ruling:
1. Akut is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months and is ADMONISHED.
2. The CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence and must not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him
3. Akut was given a copy of the Decision while he was in
town. At the very least, he should have made room in his
schedule to brief the spouses on what to do.
4. In the age of cellphones, so many things could have been
done to assist the spouses even while he was away.
5. The fact the the case his clients are facing concerns their
liberty, highest the gravity of his infraction.
6. On his claim of having more important cases: every case a
lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and
competence, regardless of his impression that one case
or hearing is more important than the other.
7. Finally, spouses lack of concern for their own case (seen
in being absent in multiple hearings) cannot shield Akut.
The instant administrative proceeding concerns Akut’s
omission, not those of his clients.
Case 78: Adarne v. Aldaba
Facts:
 1. In another case, petitioners Adarne (Cesario Adarne,
Aning Arante, and Miguel Inokando) were charged by
Spouses Cumpio for forcible entry.
2. In that case, Adarne, et al. were being represented by one
Atty. Isauro Marmita
3. In one of the hearing for that case, Atty. Marmita was
absent, so Adarne, approached Atty. Aldaba, who was
present in court to attend a separate trial, to appear as
counsel for them
4. Atty. Aldaba is Adarne’s 3rd degree cousin. He entered a
special appearance and upon noticing that the opposing
party and their counsel were not also present he moved
for the dismissal of the case. This motion was granted.
5. Spouses Cumpio filed a motion for the reconsideration
6. Atty. Aldaba was again sought by Adarne to appear in his
behalf. He accepted and filed for another special
appearance.
7. Court found merit in Atty. Aldaba’s argument during that
hearing and ordered Adarne to file an action for quieting
of title within one 1 week.
8. Later, the court declared Adarne in default for failure to
appear at the hearing
9. Here, Adarne filed complaint for gross negligence and
misconduct against Atty. Aldaba.
Issue: W/N Atty. Aldaba was negligent in representing Adarne
Ruling:
1. No. Case dismissed.
2. Judgment by default rendered against Adarne cannot be
attributed to the Atty. Aldaba.
3. The blame lies with Adarne for having engaged the
services of several layers without formally withdraing
the authority he had given to them to appear in his
behalf.
4. He did not follow the rule on substitution of attorneys.
a. a written application for such substitution
b. the written consent of the client
c. the written consent of the attorney substituted,
and
d. in case such written consent cannot be secured,
proof of service of notice of such motion upon the
attorney to be substituted must be included with
the application
5. Further, an atty is not bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and skill.
he is not answerable for every error or mistake, and will
be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith
to the best of his skill and knowledge.
Case 80: Santiago v. Fojas
Facts:
1. Complainant Santiago, et al (Santiago)was facing an
expulsion case. They allegedly expelled from the Far
Eastern University Faculty Association (FEUFA) union
Paulino Salvador.
2. The lower court ruled in favor of Salvador and ordered
the complainants to pay the latter.
 3. The case was then elevated to the CA where Santiago lost 9. Lastly, Atty. Fojas’s negligence is not excused by his claim
due to serious neglect of their counsel, Atty. Fojas to that the case was “losing cause”.
answer the civil complaint on an expulsion case. 10. SC held that he should have informed his clients of about
4. Atty. Fojas kept assuring them that everything had his honest opinion of the status of the case in accordance
already been answered the complaint. However, they with Rule 15.05, Canon 15.
soon discovered that he never answered.
5. Atty. Fojas’ defense is that he was a very busy man. Case 81:
6. Atty. Fojas later admitted his “mistake” in failing to file an
answer for the expulsion case, but he alleges that it was
cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration.
7. However, such MR was denied.
8. In his defense, Atty. Fojas claimed that the case was a
losing cause after all and that right when he was about to
appeal the decision to the SC, his services were illegally
terminated.

Issue: W/N the Atty. Fojas committed culpable negligence in

failing to file for the complainants an answer

Ruling:
1. Yes, he is reprimanded and admonished.
2. SC upheld Canon 14. Once an atty agrees to take up the
cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
3. Clients are entitled to any and every remedy and defense
authorized by the law of the land.
4. Large volume of legal work provide no excuse for his
inability to exercise due diligence in the performance of
his duty to file an answer.
5. He also violated of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03.