Digests Ethics 18 Onwards Digestsssss

8/12/2019 Digests Ethics 18 Onwards Digestsssss

1/28

Legarda v. CA (1992)

F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for specic performance. Atty. Coronel !erco"nsel failed to le an answer wit!in t!e period and Legarda was t!"s declared in

defa"lt. #!e lower co"rt rendered a decision against Legarda. Coronel failed to pose anappeal wit!in t!e period. #!"s t!e decision $ecame nal. #!e %C s"spended Atty. Coronelfor si& mont!s.

': Coronel is g"ilty of gross negligence for violating Canon 1 and r"le 1.* partic"larly. +yneglecting to le t!e answer to t!e complaint against petitioner !e set o, t!eevents w!ic! res"lted in t!e deprivation of petitioner-s rig!ts over !er !o"se and lot. /ts!o"ld $e remem$ered t!at t!e moment t!e lawyer ta0es a client-s ca"se !e covenantst!at !e will e&ert all e,ort for its prosec"tion "ntil its nal concl"sion. A lawyer w!o fails toe&ercise d"e diligence or a$andons !is client-s ca"se ma0es !im "nwort!y of t!e tr"streposed on !im $y t!e latter.

L3A45A v CA

6ma!a$a di 0o na sinama mga dissenting. #alo naman sila e!

Facts:

7ew Cat!ay 'o"se /nc. (Cat!ay) and 8ictoria Legarda entered into a lease

agreement for a property in C owned $y Legarda. For some reason Legarda ref"sed to sign t!e contract. Cat!ay made a deposit and

downpayment of rentals t!en led for specic performance. Legarda-s co"nsel 5ean Antonio Coronel re"ested a 1;day e&tension to le an

answer w!ic! was granted. +"t 5ean Coronel failed to le an answer wit!in t!atperiod.

Cat!ay presented evidence e& parte. Cat!ay won t!e case (etition was denied. 7o

motion for reconsideration or appeal was made on t!e order of denial (i$ang 0lase 0adean?)

%o Legarda !ired a new lawyer. 7ew lawyer as0ed for ann"lment of ="dgment "pon

t!e gro"nd t!at t!e old lawyer was negligent in !is d"ties. #!e petition was grantedand t!e sale of t!e C property to $e set aside.

#!e %C said t!at t!ere was "n="st enric!ment on t!e part of Cat!ay $eca"se of t!e

rec0less ine&c"sa$le and gross negligence of 5ean Coronel.


2/28

'ence t!is motion for reconsideration of %C decision.

/ss"e:

@7 Legarda can $e $o"nd $y t!e gross negligence of !er co"nsel

'eld:

Bes. riginal decision is reinstated (LegardaDloser)

As long as a party was given t!e opport"nity to defend !er interests in d"e co"rse

s!e cannot $e said to !ave $een denied d"e process of law. /f indeed Legarda is innocent t!en all t!e more t!at Cat!ay is innocent. +etween two

innocent parties t!e one w!o made it possi$le for t!e wrong to $e done s!o"ld $et!e one to $ear t!e res"lting loss.

Legarda mis="dged and !ired t!e services of 5ean Coronel w!o in t!e end sort of

a$andoned !er case. 5ecision was res ipso nal d"e to fail"re to appeal t!e decision.

4EL 1.A.C. 7o. 2G2 H"ly 21 29

7A#/8/5A5 EB Complainantvs.A##B. +4AEL/ 43 #A7%/7%/7 4espondent.

Complainant engaged t!e services of respondent to defend !im in an e=ectment casew!erein !e was t!e defendant. 4espondent was a$le to le on time an Answer to t!ecomplaint !owever w!en re"ired to le a >osition >aper !e failed to le one for and on

$e!alf of t!e complainant. vent"ally a decision was rendered $y t!e Ie#C against t!ecomplainant. #!e case was elevated to t!e 4egional #rial Co"rt $"t t!e same was dismissedsolely $eca"se of t!e fail"re of respondent to le a memorand"m on appeal. Iotion forreconsideration was li0ewise denied for !aving $een led o"t of time.

4ealiJing t!at s!e lost !er case $eca"se of t!e negligence of !er co"nsel complainantinitiated t!e dis$arment case against respondent $efore t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e>!ilippines (/+>) Committee on +ar 5iscipline (C+5). Complainant averred t!at s!e gave !erf"ll tr"st and condence to respondent $"t t!e latter failed misera$ly in !is d"ty as a lawyerand advocate. %!e also claimed t!at respondent-s fail"re to le t!e re"ired position paperand memorand"m on appeal constit"ted gross incompetence and gross negligence w!ic!ca"sed grave in="ry to complainant.9Lastly complainant alleged t!at not only didrespondent fail to le t!e re"ired pleadings !e also was remiss in informing !er of t!e

stat"s of t!e case.

/ss"e:

@!et!er or not t!e respondent failed to e&ert !is $est e,ort and a$ility in t!e prosec"tion ordefense of !is client-s ca"se.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_8252_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_8252_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_8252_2009.html#fnt9


3/28

4"ling:

4espondent-s fail"re to le t!e re"ired pleadings and to inform !is client a$o"t t!edevelopments in !er case fall $elow t!e standard e&acted "pon lawyers on dedication andcommitment to t!eir client-s ca"se. very case a lawyer accepts deserves !is f"ll attentiondiligence s0ill and competence regardless of its importance and w!et!er !e accepts it for a

fee or for free. /t m"st $e recalled t!at t!e Ie#C (in t!e e=ectment case) re"ired t!eparties to s"$mit t!eir respective position papers. 'owever respondent did not $ot!er to doso in total disregard of t!e co"rt order. /n addition respondent failed to le t!ememorand"m on appeal t!is time wit! t!e 4#C w!ere complainant-s appeal was t!enpending. #!erefore dismissing said case on t!at gro"nd alone.

F"rt!er respondent-s fail"re to le t!e re"ired pleadings is per se a violation of 4"le 1.*of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility. 4espondent also lac0ed candor in dealing wit! !isclient as !e omitted to apprise complainant of t!e stat"s of !er e=ectment case. /t s!o"ld$e stressed t!at t!e lawyer;client relations!ip is one of tr"st and condence. #!"s t!ere is aneed for t!e client to $e ade"ately and f"lly informed a$o"t t!e developments in !is case.

Atty. #ansinsin was s"spended from t!e practice of law for t!ree (*) mont!s.

3A4C/A 8 +ALA

FAC#%:

%po"ses 3arcia led a complaint against Atty. 4olando %. +ala for rendering t!em t!e wronglegal remedy and not ret"rning t!e s"m of money t!ey paid to !im. According to t!e reportof t!e /nvestigating Commissioner Atty. +ala is g"ilty for violating t!e Code of >rofessional4esponsi$ility. 5espite d"e notice !e did not appeared in any of t!e !earings so t!e casewas decided on t!e $asis of t!e complaint of complainant-s evidence. According to t!e

investigation !e erroneo"sly led notice of appeal instead of petition for review and t!isconstit"ted lac0 of professional competency. #!e report also concl"ded t!at !e s!o"ld $esanctioned for !is "n="stied ref"sal and fail"re to ret"rn t!e money paid $y !is clientsdespite !is promise to ret"rn so. Finally t!ey concl"ded t!at !e s!o"ld $e s"spended frompractice of law for period of si& mont!s in w!ic! t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors agreed wit! !iss"spension and t!at !e s!o"ld ret"rn t!e amt paid to !im $y !is clients.

/%%E:

@7 Atty +ala violated Canon 1 of C>4.

'L5:

#!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility mandates lawyers to serve t!eir clients wit!competence and diligence. 4"le 1.2 states t!at a lawyer s!all not !andle any legalmatter wit!o"t ade"ate preparation. %pecically 4"le 1.* provides t!at a lawyer s!allnot neglect a legal matter entr"sted to !im and !is negligence in connection t!erewit! s!allrender !im lia$le.

nce lawyers agree to ta0e "p t!e ca"se of t!e client t!ey owe delity to t!e ca"se andm"st always $e mindf"l of t!e tr"st and condence reposed in t!em. A client is entitled to


4/28

t!e $enet of any and every remedy and defense a"t!oriJed $y law and is e&pected to relyon t!e lawyer to assert every s"c! remedy or defense.

@!erefore !e is s"spended.

F/L/78%# LA75 /7C 8% CA

FAC#%:

Case was led wit! t!e 4#C for 4ecovery of >ossession of a parcel of land alleging t!at it ist!e owner t!ereof as evidenced #C# 7o %;19G $"t w!ic! $y occ"pied $y t!e defendant to!o"se some of its oKcers and w!o inspire of repeated demands $y t!em !as ref"sed tovacate t!e same.

#!e defendant t!ro"g! Atty %alva Atty +a"tista Atty 4eyes led a total of si& e&tensionswit! t!e co"rt total of days $eca"se of ina$ility of co"nsel-s ina$ility to read t!e records

of too m"c! wor0 or !eavy press"re of wor0 illness of t!e co"nsel or rat!er frivolo"s reasons"c! as "ne&pected wedding of one of t!e co"nsel. n t!e si&t! time t!ey led a motiont!e co"rt denied and rendered decision t!at t!ey are in defa"lt.

/%%E:

@7 lawyers are negligent for s"c! acts

'L5:

(pls se r"le 1.* E> %L/5)

#!e private respondent was given e&traordinary opport"nity to !ave its day in co"rt w!ent!e lower co"rt !ad given it a total of eig!ty;eig!t () days from service of s"mmons to leits answer to t!e complaint. #!e ina$ility of fo"r lawyers to prepare t!e answer for t!is longperiod of time is not ="stied.

Fail"re to $ring s"it immediately constit"tes negligence of attorneys.

H87 5 H%E% 8 >7+

FAC#%:

#!is appeal presents a proced"ral "estion on t!e dismissal of in appeal as perfected o"t oftime. %pecically it involves applications of %ection 1* 4"le 1 of t!e 4"les of Co"rt:

%ec.1* ,ect of fail"re to le notice $ond or record on appeal on appeal. M @!ere t!enotice of appeal Appeal $ond or record on appeal is not led wit!in t!e period of time!erein provided t!e appeal s!all $e dismissed.


5/28

5efendant $an0 admitted !aving led its notice of appeal notice on appeal and appeal $ond$eyond * day period $"t contended in its motion t!at t!e delay was d"e to accidentmista0e andor e&c"sa$le negligence. /n s"pport wit! t!eir contention it is alleged t!at t!eregistered mail was given $y t!e $an0-s postal mail cler0 "genio Iagpoc to Feliciano

HimeneJ Hr registered mail cler0 of appellant-s cas!ier department. 5"e to t!e vol"me ofwor0 it was delivered late on its legal department and failed to inform t!at t!e letter was

two days ago.

/%%E:

@7 t!e appellant-s co"nsel is negligent.

'L5:

#!e lower co"rt did not nd e&c"sa$le negligence wit! t!eir reason. #!e appellant-s co"nselcarelessly too0 for granted t!at t!e date of receipt stamped on t!e letter $y t!e legaldepartment-s legal receiving cler0 was t!e date of receipt from t!e post oKce. Co"nsel forappellant co"ld !ave easily fo"nd o"t t!e letter date t!at !e in"ired and t!e co"rt did notnd any e&c"se for fail"re to do so. %"c! fatal conse"ence !as often res"lted as w!at

!appened to appellant-s rig!t to appeal in t!e instant case.

Fail"re to ascertain date of receipt from post oKce of notice of decision res"lting in t!e non;perfection of t!e appellant-s appeal constit"tes negligence of attorneys.

Gaerlan vs Bernal

Agravante vs Patriarca

FAC#%

/n 19N H"ana >atriarca led an action to "iet title wit! CFL Cams"r. #!e pretrial wasresc!ed"led after Aggravante moved for cancellation for illness of attorney and medcert wasattac!ed wit! t!e motion. /t was denied for lac0 of notice to adverse party. >retrial wasp"s!ed t!ro"g! wit! defendants a$sent. Aggravante declared to $e s"$stit"ted in !er stead./t was granted. Aggravante led petition for certiorari wit! %C.

/%%E

@7 Co"rt ac"ired ="risdiction over >atriarca.

4EL/73

Bes. Allegation of aggravante wad demise of >atriarca long $efore t!e pretrial settingprevented t!e #C from ac"iring ="risdiction over !er. %C said t!at ="risdiction over t!e


6/28

person of t!e plainti, is ac"ired $y t!e co"rt $y t!e ling of complaint. %"$se"ent deat!will not a,ect ="risdiction all t!at is entailed is t!e s"$stit"tion of t!e !eirs for t!e deceasedin accordance wit! 4"le * %ection 1O. /n any gro"nd to oppose t!e s"$stit"tion or t!at t!ey!ad s",ered any pre="dice of any sort $y reason of s"$stit"tion.

Ventura vs Santos

Alcoriza vs Lumakang

FAC#%

AlcoriJa t!e defendant in a civil case and !is lawyer L"ma0ang were not present d"ring t!edecision despite t!e fact t!at t!ey were notied to do so. L"ma0ang averred t!at !e did notgo to t!e co"rt $eca"se !e !as waited for AlcoriJa saying !e will not attend wit!o"t !im

$eca"se it wo"ld $e lac0 of preparation on !is part as a lawyer. 'e $egan s"specting t!atAlcoriJa !as already lost !is interest and as a lawyer !e cannot $e more interested in !isclient-s case t!an t!e client !imself.

/%%E

@7 Atty L"ma0ang s!o"ld $e given disciplinary action.

4EL/73

7o. Alt!o"g! Atty. L"ma0ang was not prepared to enter into trial on t!at day still !e co"lddo t!ings to prote&t t!e interest of !is client $y appearing for !im in t!e co"rt. 'owever it isnot considered t!at t!is inaction of Atty L"ma0ang wo"ld constit"te so serio"s a gro"nd asto warrant disciplinary action in view of t!e lac0 of interest w!ic! !is client !as s!own in t!epremises. L"ma0ang for !is fail"re to appear s!o"ld $e reprimanded for !is inaction as itwo"ld tend to diminis! tr"st and condence w!ic! t!e p"$lic is s"pposed to repose in t!eoKce of a lawyer.

Capulong vs Alino

FAC#%

4espondent Ian"el Alino a mem$er of t!e $ar is c!arged $y !is former clients t!e spo"sesmilio and Cirila Cap"long wit! alleged gross negligence tantamo"nt to malpractice and$etrayal of !is client- tr"st and condence after Atty Alino failed to pay doc0et fee and todeposit t!e estimated cost of printing of t!e record for t!e appeal t!ey led on Co"rt ofAppeals after t!e decision on a civil case t!at was adverse t!e complainants. #!is fail"reres"lted to t!e dismissal of t!e appeal.


7/28

#!e respondent-s contention was t!e complainants !ad a"t!oriJed !im to e&ercise !is="dgment and discretion in determining w!et!er or not !e s!o"ld prosec"te t!e appeal andto regard said s"m of >29 as compensation of !is services in connection wit! said cases!o"ld !e consider it advisa$le to desist from said appeal and e&pressed !is intention ofintrod"cing additional evidence.

/%%E

@7 t!e actions of Alino constit"te legal malpractice

4EL/73

Bes. /n t!e view of t!e allegation in respondent-s answer t!e same designated its LegalKcer for t!e reception of said evidence. Bet after sec"ring fo"r postponements of t!e date

set $y said oKcer for t!is p"rpose respondent did not introd"ce any additional evidence in!is favo"r. Apart from s"ggesting a misappropriation of f"nds !eld $y !im in tr"st for !isclients and $reac! of s"c! tr"st t!e foregoing acts and omissions indicate t!e !ig! degreeof irresponsi$ility of respondent !erein and !is "nwort!iness to contin"e as a mem$er of t!elegal profession. #!e respondent was dis$arred.

Republic vs Arro

Legarda vs CA

PHHC vs Tiongco

FAC#%

Appellants Ielc!or #iongco were registered s"atters of an area. Long $efore >eople-s'omesite and 'o"sing Corporation declared a parcel of land em$raced in #C# 1*GN of t!e"eJon City 4egister of 5eeds. Appellants were already occ"pying t!e portion and !aveintrod"ced improvements t!ereon and !ad declared t!e property for ta&ation p"rposes. /nt!e cens"s list of t!e corporation t!e appellants were considered a $onade occ"pants of

t!e property and d"ring t!e same period t!ey !ad applied to p"rc!ase t!e property fromt!e >''C. #!ey fo"nd o"t later t!at t!e same !ad already $een awarded to As"ncionnverga a relative of congressman in spite of t!e fact t!at s!e !ad not occ"pied t!eproperty at any time nor introd"ced any improvements. /mmediately "pon t!e discovery oft!e award a complaint was lodged $y #iongco and scasa wit! t!e appellee >''C. After apreliminary investigation of t!e complaint "genio Alvarado. Hr. c!ief of investigation andresearc! section >''C investigating committee wit! t!e recommendation t!at t!ey !avepriority rig!ts to t!e property w!ic! was given after two investigations. #!e matter !as$een s"$mitted to t!e &ec"tive Committee to render t!eir ="dgment.


8/28

'owever no action !as $een ta0en on t!e report. Fo"r mont!s after t!e ling of t!ecomplaint t!e >''C instit"ted an action for 4ecovery of >ossession in t!e Co"rt of First/nstance of "eJon City t!e appellant interposes t!e defense of >riority of 4ig!t of >"rc!aseand a$ility to pay w!ic! was fo"nd in t!e investigation made $y t!e appellee. #!e case wasset for !earing on Fe$r"ary O 19N1. #!e appellant-s co"nsel Atty. +onifacion #anega failedto notify t!e appellants of t!e sc!ed"led !earing. #!e case was !eard t!e plainti,

introd"ced evidence s!owing owners!ip of t!e property. #!e ="dgment !eld t!at t!e plainti,is t!e owner of t!e land sit"ated in C and t!at t!e defendants wit!o"t t!e consent and0nowledge of t!e plainti, entered and constr"cted t!eir !o"ses "pon t!en premisesdepriving t!e plainti, of t!e possession of t!e same parcel of land. #iongco and scasa wereordered to remove t!eir !o"ses and t!e improvements on t!em and pay t!e plainti, t!es"m of >2N per mont! from t!e date of occ"pation "ntil premises in "estion is restored tot!e plainti, and t!e >2 in attorneys fees.

Alt!o"g! t!e a$ove ="dgment was received $y co"nsel for t!e appellants !e never informedt!e latter a$o"t t!e matter. 7eit!er did !e ta0e steps to protect t!e interests of !is clients$y presenting a motion for reconsideration andor ling a petition to set aside ="dgment.Appellants only came to 0now t!at an adverse decision !ad $een prom"lgated w!en on Iay19N1 t!e 5ep"ty %!eri, of C served t!em a copy of writ of e&ec"tion ordering t!em to

vacate t!e premises and to pay t!e amo"nts ordained t!erein. Appellants lost no time incontacting t!eir co"nsel Atty #anega and failing to do so t!ey engaged t!e services of Atty.Ciriaco %ayson w!o presented wit! t!e lower co"rt a petition for relief from ="dgmentaccompanied $y aKdavits of merit. #!e presiding ="dge cited Atty #anega admitted to t!eco"rt t!at !e did not inform t!e appellants of t!e !earing as !e forgot all a$o"t t!e samePt!at !e received t!e decision $"t did not also inform t!e appellants a$o"t it $eca"se !eforgot all a$o"t t!e case e&plaining t!at !e !ad so many e=ectment cases t!en t!at t!eorders and decisions in t!e case ="st escaped !is attention.

/%%E

@7 Atty tanega-s cond"ct constit"tes negligence of !is d"ties as a lawyer.

4EL/73.

#!ere was somet!ing s!y and s"spicio"s concerning t!e act"ations of former co"nsel Atty#anega in t!is cae. 'e did not give any signicance at all to t!e processes of t!e co"rtw!ic! !as proven pre="dicial to t!e rig!ts of !is clients. #!ere was not!ing w!ic! co"ld !aveprevented t!e appellants from attending t!e trial of t!e case t!emselves or moving for areconsideration of t!e decision or ta0ing t!e necessary appeal from t!e ="dgment if onlyt!eir co"nsel !ad informed t!em of t!e co"rt-s processes. Co"nsel !ad simply ignored t!e

rig!ts of !is clients $y giving a lame and Qimsy e&planation t!at t!e co"rt-s processes ="stescaped !is attention. 'e deprived t!em of t!eir day in co"rt.

#!ere s!o"ld $e no disp"te regarding t!e doctrine t!at normally notice to co"nsel is noticeto parties and t!at s"c! doctrine !as $enecient e,ects "pon t!e prompt dispensation of

="stice. /ts application to a given case !owever s!o"ld $e loo0ed into and adoptedaccording to t!e s"rro"nding circ"mstancesP ot!erwise in t!e co"rt-s desire to ma0e as!ortc"t of t!e proceedings it mig!t foster wittingly or "nwittingly dangero"s coll"sions tot!e detriment of ="stice. /t wo"ld t!en $e easy for one lawyer to sell one-s rig!ts down t!eriver $y ="st alleging t!at !e ="st forgot every process of t!e co"rt a,ecting !is clients


9/28

$eca"se !e was so $"sy. Ender t!is circ"mstance one s!o"ld not insist t!at a notice to s"c!irresponsi$le lawyer is also a notice to !is clients.

#!e attention of t!e trial co"rt is invited to t!e cens"ra$le cond"ct of Atty #anega in t!ispartic"lar case and to ta0e s"c! action may $e warranted in t!e premises.

Blanza v Arcangel !"#$%

F: 5"e to lac0 of evidence t!e %C dismissed t!e case against Atty. Arcangel w!o aftervol"nteering to !elp petitioners +lanJa and >asion to claim pension (in connection wit! t!edeat!s t!eir >C !"s$ands) failed to inform t!em of t!e progress of t!eir case $eca"se t!ey!ad not paid !im for p!otostating e&penses !e !ad inc"rred.

': A lawyer !as a dynamic and positive role in t!e comm"nity t!an merely complying wit!

t!e minimal tec!nicalities of t!e stat"re. As a man of law !e is necessarily a leader of t!ecomm"nity loo0ed "p to as a model citiJen. 'is cond"ct m"st perforce $e par e&cellenceespecially so w!en as in t!is case !e vol"nteers !is professional services.4espondent !ere !as not lived "p to t!at ideal standard. /t was "nnecessary to !avecomplainants wait and !ope for si& long years on t!eir pension claims. Epon t!eir ref"salto co;operate respondent s!o"ld !ave fort!wit!.

4+C/ v FL4/5A.C. 7o. GO*N H"ne 1 21CA4>/

H.:

FAC#%:

4"ral +an0 of Calape /nc. led a complaint for dis$arment against respondent.

4+C/ allegedt!at respondent violated !is oat! and t!e Code of >rofessional

4esponsi$ility.According to 4+C/ respondent and !is clients 7aJareno;4elampagos

gro"p t!ro"g! force andintimidation forci$ly too0 over t!e management and t!e

premises of 4+C/. #!ey also forci$ly evictedCirilo A. 3aray t!e $an0 manager

destroyed t!e $an0-s va"lt and installed t!eir own sta, to r"n t!e $an0.4espondent

added t!at t!e criminal complaint for malicio"s misc!ief led against !im $y 4+C/

wasalready dismissedP w!ile t!e complaint for grave coercion was ordered s"spend

ed $eca"se of t!ee&istence of a pre="dicial "estion. 4espondent said t!at t!edis$arment complaint was led against !imin retaliation for t!e administrative

cases !e led against 4+C/-s co"nsel and t!e trial co"rt ="dges of +o!ol.Ioreover

respondent claimed t!at 4+C/ failed to present any evidence to prove t!eir

allegations.4espondent added t!at t!e aKdavits attac!ed to t!e complaint were

never identied aKrmed or conrmed $y t!e aKants and t!at none of t!e

doc"mentary e&!i$its were originals or certied tr"ecopies.


10/28

/%%E:

@!et!er or not respondent violated !is oat! and t!e C>4 Canon 19.

'L5:

#!e Co"rt !eld t!at respondent was g"ilty as c!arged and s"spended for a year. #!erst andforemost d"ty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to t!e 4ep"$lic of t!e

>!ilippines "p!old t!eConstit"tion and o$ey t!e laws of t!e land. /t is t!e lawyer-s

d"ty to promote respect for t!e law and legal processes and to a$stain from

activities aimed at deance of t!e law or lessening condence in t!e

legalsystem.Canon 19 of t!e Code provides t!at a lawyer s!all represent !is client

wit! Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!elaw. /t is !is d"ty to co"nsel !is clients to "se

peacef"l and lawf"l met!ods in see0ing ="stice and refrainfrom doing an intentional

wrong to t!eir adversaries.A lawyer-s d"ty is not to !is client $"t to t!e

administration of ="stice. #o t!at end !is client-s s"ccess isw!olly s"$ordinate. 'is

cond"ct o"g!t to and m"st always $e scr"p"lo"sly o$servant of t!e law

andet!ics.Any means not !onora$le fair and !onest w!ic! is resorted to $y t!e

lawyer even in t!e p"rs"it of !is devotion to !is client-s ca"se is condemna$le

and "net!ical.

Facts:

R

Atty. Lolito 3. Aparicio appeared as legal co"nselfor 3race C. '"fana in an illegal

dismissal case$efore t!e 7ational La$or 4elations Commission(7L4C) againstcomplainant Fernando Iartin >ena.'"fana is praying for claim for separation pay

$"t>ena re=ected t!e claim as $aseless.

R

#!ereafter Aparicio sent >ena a letter

reiterating!is clientSs claim for separation pay. #!ro"g! !isletter !e t!reatened

complainant t!at s!o"ld >enafail to pay t!e amo"nts t!ey propose as

settlement!e wo"ld le and claim $igger amo"nts incl"dingmoral damages as well

as m"ltiple c!arges s"c!

asta& evasion falsication of doc"ments andcancellation of $"siness license to operate d"e toviolations of laws.

/ss"e:

R

@7 Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.1) of t!eC>4 en=oining every lawyer to

represent !is client wit!Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e law


11/28

B%

7+:

4"le 19.1.

A lawyer s!all employ

only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is

client and s!all not present participate in presenting or t!reaten to

present "nfo"nded criminal c!arges to o$tain animproper advantage in any case or

proceeding.T

R

@7 it is proper to dis$ar Aparicio

7reprimand only'eld:

R

Ender Canon 19 a lawyer s!o"ld not le or t!reaten to le any "nfo"nded or

$aseless criminalcase or cases against t!e adversaries of !is

clientdesigned to sec"re leverage to compel t!eadversaries to yield or wit!draw t!e

ir own casesagainst t!e lawyerSs client.

R

/n t!e case at $ar t!e t!reats are not

only"net!ical for violating Canon 19 $"t t!ey alsoamo"nt to

$lac0mail

.

+lac0mail is Tt!e e&tortion of money from a person $y t!reats of acc"sation

or e&pos"re or opposition in t!e p"$lic printsUo$taining of val"e from a person as

a condition of refraining from ma0ing an acc"sation against !im or disclosing

some secret calc"lated to operate to !is pre="dice.T

#!e letter in t!is case contains more t!an ="st a simple demand to pay. /t even

contains at!reat to le retaliatory c!arges against complainantw!ic! !ave not!ing

to do wit! !is clientSs claim for separation pay. /ndeed letters of t!is nat"re are

denitely proscri$ed $y t!e Code of >rofessional4esponsi$ility.

R


12/28

/t was not respondentSs intention to pointo"t complainantSs violations of t!e

law as !e sogallantly claims. Far from it t!e letter even containsan implied promise

to

T0eep silentT

a$o"t t!e saidviolations if payment of t!e claim is made on t!edate indicated.

R

5C/%/7:

@!ile t!e writing of t!e

letter went $eyond et!ical standards we !old t!atdis$arment is too severe a

penalty to $e imposed onrespondent considering t!at !e wrote t!e same

o"tof !is overJealo"sness to protect !is clientSsinterests. Accordingly t!e more

appropriate penaltyis

reprimand.

R

n t!e s"i generis c!aracter of dis$armentproceedings t!e Co"rt ratiocinated in

/n re Almacen

:5isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are

s"i generis

.

7eit!er p"rely civil nor p"rely criminal

t!ey do not involve a trial of an action or a s"it $"t israt!er an

investigation $y t!e Co"rt into t!econd"ct of one of its oKcers

. 7ot $eing intended toinQict p"nis!ment it is in no sense a criminalprosec"tion.

Accordingly

t!ere is neit!er a plainti, nor a prosec"tor t!erein

. /t may $e initiated $y t!eCo"rt

mot" proprio

.


13/28

>"$lic interest is its primaryo$=ective and t!e real "estion for determinationis

w!et!er or not t!e attorney is still a t personto $e allowed t!e privileges as s"c!

. 'ence in t!ee&ercise of its disciplinary powers

t!e Co"rt merelycalls "pon a mem$er of t!e +ar to acco"nt for !isact"ations as an

oKcer of t!e Co"rt wit! t!e

endin view of preserving t!e p"rity of t!e legalprofession and t!e proper and !onest

administration of ="stice $y p"rging t!eprofession of mem$ers w!o $y t!eir

miscond"ct!ave proved t!emselves no longer wort!y to

$eentr"sted wit! t!e d"ties and responsi$ilitiespertaining to t!e oKce of an

attorney. /n s"c!post"re t!ere can t!"s $e no occasion to spea0of a complainant or

a prosec"tor

.

45LF I/LLA4 petitioner

vs.

A##B. E%#AE/ V. I7#4 respondent.

Complainant o$tained a favora$le ="dgment from t!e I#C w!ic! ordered

respondent-s client to vacate t!e premises s"$=ect of t!e e=ectment case.

respondent as co"nsel appealed t!e decision. CA dismissed CoSs appeal from t!e

decision of t!e 4#C for fail"re to comply wit! t!e proper proced"res. 4espondent

t!ereafter resorted to devio"s and "nder!anded means to delay t!e e&ec"tion of

t!e ="dgment rendered $y t!e I#C adverse to !is client.

'eld: %E%>755 for (1) year. 4"le 12.2. W A lawyer s!all not le m"ltiple actionsarising from t!e same ca"se. 4"le 12.. W A lawyer s!all not "nd"ly delay a case

impede t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment or mis"se co"rt processes.

Ender Canon 19 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility a lawyer is re"ired to

represent !is client Twit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e law.T #!e Code en=oins a lawyer to

employ only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is client (4"le

19.1) and warns !im not to allow !is client to dictate t!e proced"re in !andling t!e

case (4"le 19.*). /n s!ort a lawyer is not a g"n for !ire.

/t is "net!ical for a lawyer to a$"se or wrongf"lly "se t!e ="dicial process li0e t!e

ling of dilatory motions repetitio"s litigation and frivolo"s appeals for t!e sole

p"rpose of fr"strating and delaying t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment.

A ="dgment can $e ann"lled only on two gro"nds: (a) t!at t!e ="dgment is void for

want of ="risdiction or for lac0 of d"e process of law or ($) t!at it !as $een o$tained

$y fra"d.


14/28

H"dging from t!e n"m$er of actions led $y respondent to forestall t!e e&ec"tion of

t!e same ="dgment respondent is also g"ilty of for"m s!opping. For"m s!opping

e&ists w!en $y reason of an adverse decision in one for"m defendant vent"res to

anot!er for a more favora$le resol"tion of !is case.

Corp"J vs CA

Atty 5avid and Corp"J were good friends. /n Corp"J-s civil case 5avid $ecame !is

co"nsel. >rior to rendering of nal ="dgment Corp"J gave t!e lawyer a c!ec0 w!ic!

t!e latter ret"rned. After favora$le decision was rendered Atty. 5avid demanded

attorney-s fee w!ic! Corp"J ref"sed to deliver alleging t!at 5avid-s services were

o,ered grat"ito"sly. #!e Co"rt decided t!at Atty. 5avid s!o"ld $e paid attorney-s

fees.

': An attorney;client relations!ip can $e created $y implied agreement as w!en t!e

attorney act"ally rendered legal services for a person w!o is a close friend. #!e

o$ligation of s"c! a person to pay attorney-s fees is $ased on t!e law of contracts-

concept of facio "t des (no one s!all "n="stly enric! !imself at t!e e&pense of

ot!ers.) A$sence of an e&press contract for attorney-s fees $etween respondent

5avid and petitioner Corp"s is no arg"ment against t!e payment of attorney-s fees

considering t!eir close relations!ip w!ic! signies m"t"al tr"st and condence

$etween t!em.

Al$ano v. Coloma (19NO)

F: Coloma was Al$ano-s co"nsel d"ring t!e Hapanese occ"pation. According to

Al$ano Coloma failed to e&pedite !earing and termination of case. Coloma denied

t!at s!e did not!ing to e&pedite t!e !earing and termination of s"c! civil case as

t!e records wo"ld s!ow ot!erwise. After Al$anos won in t!e case Coloma

intervened to collect attorney-s fee w!ic! is comp"ted at **.*X of w!at t!e

Al$anos can recover. #!e Co"rt !eld t!at Coloma may recover attorney-s fees.

': Co"nsel any co"nsel if wort!y of !is !ire is entitled to $e f"lly recompensed for

!is services. @it! !is capital consisting solely of !is $rains and !is s0ill ac"ired at

tremendo"s cost not only in money $"t in t!e e&pendit"re of time and energy !e is

entitled to t!e protection of any ="dicial tri$"nal against any attempt on t!e part of

a client to escape payment of !is fees. /t is indeed ironic if after p"tting fort! t!e


15/28

$est t!at is in !im to sec"re ="stice for t!e party !e represents !e !imself wo"ld

not get !is d"e. %"c! an event"ality t!is Co"rt is determined to avoid.

Case of #raders 4oyal +an0 mployees Enion; /ndependent vs 7L4C and mman"el

7oel A. Cr"J

3.4.7o. 12G92 1Iarc!199O

FAC#% F #' CA%:

#!at #4+ mployees Enion !ad a retainer agreement wit! Atty. Cr"J for *.

in consideration of t!e law rm-s "nderta0ing to render t!e services en"merated in

t!eir contract. 5"ring t!e e&istence of t!e agreement t!e "nion referred to t!e

private respondent t!e claims of its mem$ers for !oliday mid;year and year;end

$on"ses against t!eir employer #4+.

#!e 7L4C granted t!e petition of t!e "nion wit! regard to t!e demand for $on"ses.

After t!e %.C. acting "pon t!e c!allenge of #4+an0 of t!e 7L4C decision in itsdecision on A"g"st * 199 modied t!e decision of t!e 7L4C $y deleting t!e

award of mid; year and year; end $on"s di,erentials w!ile aKrming t!e award of

!oliday pay di,erential.

After #4+ vol"ntarily complied wit! t!e decision t!e respondent on %eptem$er 1

199 notied t!e "nion #4+ management and t!e 7L4C of !is rig!t to e&ercise and

enforce !is attorney-s lien over t!e award of !oliday pay di,erential t!ro"g! a letter

dated cto$er 199.

/%%E% F #' CA%:

@as t!e lien made $y t!e respondent attorney over t!e award as attorney-s fees

valid

; Bes +eca"se t!e contract $etween t!e Enion and t!e attorney stip"lates t!at t!e

*. paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for t!e law

rm-s commitment to render t!e services en"merated on >A4# A and + of t!e

retainer agreement.

; #!e retainer fee paid $y t!e Enion is not a payment for t!e rm-s e&ec"tion or

performance of t!e services listed in t!e contract s"$=ect to t!e partic"lar

"alications.; $ligations do not emanate only from contracts. ne of t!e so"rces of e&tra;

contract"al o$ligations fo"nd in o"r civil code is t!e "asi contract premised on t!e

roman ma&im t!at nemo alteri"s detrimento loc"pletari potest

; As early as 19* t!e co"rt !as allowed t!e payment of reasona$le professional

fees to an interpreter not wit!standing t!e lac0 of "nderstanding wit! !is client as

to !is rem"neration on t!e $asis a "asi;contract. /t is not necessary t!at t!e


16/28

parties agree on a denite fee for t!e special services rendered $y t!e rm in order

t!at t!e "nion may $e o$ligated to pay compensation. "ity and fair play dictate

t!at petitioner s!o"ld pay t!e same after it accepted availed itself of and $eneted

from t!e rm-s services.

; #!e meas"re of compensation for private respondent-s services as against !is

client s!o"ld $e properly addressed $y t!e r"le of "ant"m mer"it is "sed as t!e$asis for determining t!e lawyer-s professional fees in t!e a$sence of a contract.

'L5:

#!e resol"tion of t!e 7L4C wit! regard to t!e attorney-s fees is modied and Enion

is !ere$y ordered to pay 1 for t!e rm-s rendered services.

$ligations and Contracts #erms:

R 3eneral 4etaining Fee; is t!e fee paid to a lawyer to sec"re !is f"t"re services as

general co"nsel for any ordinary legal pro$lem t!at may arise from ro"tinary

$"siness of t!e client and referred to !im for legal action. #!e reason for t!e

rem"neration is t!at t!e lawyer is deprived of t!e opport"nity of rendering services

for a fee to t!e opposing party or ot!er parties. /t is a compensation for lost

opport"nities.

5isting"is! from 4"le * M 7ocom v. Camerino 34 129 Fe$ 1 29

F: Camarino were agric"lt"ral tenants w rig!t to redeem. Allegedly e&ec"ted an

irrevoca$le >ower of Atty to sell parcels of land. %"$se"ently annotated to t!e

#C#. Camarino wanted to ann"l s"c! consent was vitiated $eca"se did not 0now it

was an irrevoca$le power of attorney. 7ocom alleged t!at it cannot $e cancelled"nilaterally alleged t!at !e paid for it....Camarinos led motion for s"mmary

="dgment stating t!at sicne 7ocom admitted to t!e e&istence of t!e irrevoca$le

power of attorney...s"mmary ="dgment proper $eca"se only resolve @7 it was

co"pled w interest and @7 it is irrevoca$le. Allege t!at t!ere is not iss"e as to t!e

contents of t!e irrevoca$le power of atty

': facts not s"$=ect motion for s"mmary =d"gment

2 re"isites:

7o gen"ine iss"e as to material facts

>arty moving for s"mmary ="dgment entitled to ="dgment $y law

3enato v. %ilapan G* >!il. 91 (2*)Facts:Atty. %ilapan and 3enato !ad an attorney;client relations!ip. 3enato led c!argesagainst %ilapan d"e to t!e latter-s fail"re to pay amortiJation fees. %ilapan allegedin !is answer t!at 3enato is a $"sinessman in real estate $"siness w!o traded and


17/28

$"ys and sells deciency ta&ed imported cars provides s!ar0 loan and engages inot!er s!ady deals. 'e also alleged t!at 3enato !as many pending cases and !adattempted to $ri$e oKcials to lift t!e case. #!e %C !eld t!at %ilapan !ad violatedcondentiality of lawyer;client relations!ip.

'eld:

Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility provides t!at a lawyer owesdelity to t!e ca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and condencereposed on !im. #!e r"le is t!at an attorney is not permitted to disclosecomm"nications made to !im in !is professional c!aracter $y a client "nless t!elatter consents. #!is o$ligation to preserve t!e condences and secrets of a clientarises at t!e inception of t!eir relations!ip. #!e protection given to t!e client isperpet"al and does not cease wit! t!e termination of t!e litigation nor is it a,ected$y t!e party-s ceasing to employ t!e attorney and retaining anot!er or $y anyot!er c!ange of relation $etween t!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e client. /tm"st $e stressed !owever t!at t!e privilege against disclos"re of condentialcomm"nications or information is limited only to comm"nications w!ic! arelegitimately and properly wit!in t!e scope of a lawf"l employment of a lawyer. /t

does not e&tend to t!ose made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of afra"d. /t is not wit!in t!e profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to !ow !e maycommit a crime. #!"s t!e attorney;client privilege does not attac! t!ere $eing noprofessional employment in t!e strict sense. 7evert!eless respondent-se&planation t!at it was necessary for !im to ma0e t!e disclos"res in !is pleadingfails to satisfy t!e Co"rt. #!e disclos"res were not indispensa$le to protect !is rig!tsas t!ey were not pertinent to t!e foreclos"re case. /t was improper for t!e respondent to "seit against t!e complainant in t!e foreclos"re case as it was not t!e s"$=ect matter oflitigation t!erein and respondent-s professional competence and legal advice were not $eingattac0ed in said case.

37A# v. %/LA>A7

>E7 H"ly 1 2*7A#E4Complaint for dis$arment

&ACTS(Complainant-s side);H"ly 1992 respondent allegedly as0ed t!e complainant

if !e co"ld rent asmall oKce space in complainant-s$"ilding in "eJon City for !is

law practice. Complainant acceded and introd"ced respondent to Atty.+en=amin

5acanay complainant-s retained lawyer w!o accommodated respondent in t!e

$"ilding and made !im !andle some of complainant-s cases.;4espondent $orrowed

two !"ndred t!o"sand pesos (>2.) from complainant w!ic! !e intended to

"se as down payment for t!e p"rc!ase of a new car. /n ret"rn respondent iss"ed to

complainant a postdated c!ec0 in t!e amo"nt of >1ONG2.to answer for t!e si&

(N) mont!s interest on t!e loan. 'e li0ewise mortgaged to complainant !is !o"seand lot in "eJon City $"t did not s"rrender its title claiming t!at it was t!e s"$=ect

of reconstit"tion proceedings $efore t!e "eJon City 4egister of 5eeds.;#!e

respondent $o"g!t t!e car $"t t!e doc"ment of sale was iss"ed in t!e

complainant-s name and nanced t!ro"g! City #r"st Company.;Han"ary 199*:

respondent introd"ced to complainant a certain mman"el 4omero w!o wanted to

$orrow money from complainant. Complainant lent 4omero t!e money and from


18/28

t!is transaction respondent earned commission in t!e amo"nt

of >G229.9. Complainant "sed t!e commission to pay respondent-s arrears wit!

t!e car nancing rm.;%"$se"ently respondent failed to pay t!e amortiJation on

t!e car and t!e nancing rm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant

tried to encas! respondent-s postdated c!ec0 wit! t!e drawee $an0 $"t it was

dis!onored as respondent-s acco"nt t!erein was already closed. 4espondent failedto !eed complainant-s repeated demands for payment. Complainant t!en led a

criminal case against respondent for violation of +atas >am$ansa +lg. 22and a civil

case for ="dicial foreclos"re of real estate mortgage.;/n t!e foreclos"re case t!ere

spondent alleged t!at t!e complainant is engaged in $"y and sell of deciency

ta&ed imported carss!ar0 loans and s!ady deals and !as many cases pending in

co"rt w!ic! t!e complainant denied adding t!at t!e allegations were li$elo"s and

were irrelevant to t!e foreclos"re case. A partic"lar allegation states t!at in one

case t!e complainant wo"ld only give t!e respondent t!e doc"ment of sale of t!e

car if t!e latter wo"ld $ri$e t!e review committee of t!e 5H for a case of t!e

complainant. According to t!e complainant t!e allegation was aside from $eing

false immaterial to t!e foreclos"re case and malicio"sly designed to defame !im

t!e respondent was also g"ilty of $rea0ing t!eir condential lawyer;client

relations!ip and s!o"ld $e !eld administratively lia$le.; t!e complainant t!en led

t!is complaint for dis$arment praying also t!at an administrative sanction $e

meted against respondent for !isiss"ance of a $o"ncing c!ec0

(respondent-s side);/t was complainant w!o o,ered !im an oKce space in !is

$"ilding and retained !im as co"nsel as t!e latter was impressed wit! t!e way !e

!andled a +.>. 22 case led against complainant.;#!ere was not!ing li$elo"s in !is

imp"tations of dis!onest $"siness practices to complainant and !is revelation of

complainant-s desire to $ri$e government oKcials in relation to !is pending criminalcase. 'e claimed to !ave made t!ese statements in t!e co"rse of ="dicial

proceedings to defend !is case and discredit complainant-s credi$ility $y

esta$lis!ing !is criminal propensity to commit fra"d tell lies and violate laws. 'e

arg"ed t!at !e is not g"ilty of $rea0ing !is condential lawyer;client relations!ip

wit! complainant a s!e made t!e disclos"re in defense of !is !onor and rep"tation.;

4espondent asserted t!at !e e&ec"ted t!e real estate mortgage infavor of

complainant wit!o"t consideration and only as a formal re"irement so !e co"ld

o$tain t!e>2. loan and for t!is reason !e did not s"rrender !is title over

t!e mortgaged property to complainant.;4espondent claimed t!at !e iss"ed t!e

postdated c!ec0 not for acco"nt or for val"e $"t only: (a) to serve assome 0ind of

ac0nowledgment t!at !e already received in advance a portion of !is attorney-s

fees from t!e complainant for t!e legal services !e rendered and ($) as a form

of ass"rance t!at !e will not a$andon t!e cases !e was !andling for complainant.;

4espondent denied t!at !e received a >G229.9 commission from 4omero-s loan

w!ic! !e allegedly !elped facilitate alleging t!at t!e amo"nt paid to !im was for

attorney-s fees. 'e "sed t!is amo"nt to pay !is arrears wit! t!e car nancing rm.

n Han"ary 29 199* $efore paying t!e ne&t amortiJation on t!e car !e as0ed


19/28

complainant to e&ec"te a deed of sale transferring owners!ip of t!e car

to !im. Complainant ref"sed and insisted t!at !e wo"ld transfer owners!ip of t!e

car only after t!e termination of !is criminal case w!ic! respondent was !andling as

!is defense lawyer. Conse"ently respondent stopped paying t!e amortiJation on

t!e car. 4espondent also alleged t!at !e led a per="ry case against complainant

w!o in t"rn led a complaint for li$el against !im.;cto$er 2O 199*: t!e Co"rtreferred t!e administrative case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines (/+>)for

investigation report and recommendation.;A"g"st * 22 t!e +oard of 3overnors

of t!e /+> approved t!e report of t!e investigating commissioner nding t!e

respondent g"ilty as c!arged and recommending !is s"spension from t!e practice

of law for one (1) year./%%E%1. @7 t!e co"rt !as t!e ="risdiction to sanction

respondent for !isiss"ance of t!e $o"ncing c!ec0.2. @7 t!e respondent

committed a $reac! of tr"st and condence $y imp"ting to complainant illegal

practices and disclosing complainant-s alleged intention to $ri$e government

oKcials in connection wit! a pending case and t!"s wo"ld $e sanctioned.

'L51. 7 it is not for t!e Co"rt to sanction respondent for !is iss"ance of a

$o"ncing c!ec0 w!ic! wo"ld $e determined $yt!e trial co"rt.

4atio

@e s!all not delve into t!emerits of t!e vario"s criminal and civilcases pending

$etween t!e parties. /tis for t!e trial co"rts !andling t!esecases to ascertain t!e

tr"t! or falsityof t!e allegations made t!erein.2. B% respondent-s allegations

anddisclos"res in t!e foreclos"re caseamo"nt to a $reac! of delitys"Kcient to

warrant t!e imposition of disciplinary sanction against !im.

4atio

A lawyer m"st cond"ct !imselfespecially in !is dealings wit! !isclients wit!

integrity in a manner t!atis $eyond reproac!. 'is relations!ipwit! !is clients s!o"ld

$ec!aracteriJed $y t!e !ig!est degree of good fait! and fairness.

4easoning

Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility providest!at a lawyer owes

delity to t!eca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and

condencereposed on !im. #!e long;esta$lis!edr"le is t!at an attorney is

notpermitted to disclose comm"nicationsmade to !im in !is professionalc!aracter

$y a client "nless t!e latterconsents.;#!e o$ligation to preserve t!econdences and

secrets of a clientarises at t!e inception of t!eirrelations!ip. #!e protection given

tot!e client is perpet"al and does notcease wit! t!e termination of t!elitigation nor

is it a,ected $y t!eparty-s ceasing to employ t!eattorney and retaining anot!er or

$yany ot!er c!ange of relation $etweent!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e

client.;'owever t!e privilege against disclos"re of condential comm"nications or

information islimited only to comm"nications w!ic!are legitimately and properly


20/28

wit!int!e scope of a lawf"l employment of alawyer./t does not e&tend to t!osemade

in contemplation of a crime orperpetration of a fra"d. /f t!e "nlawf"lp"rpose is

avowed as in t!is case t!ecomplainant-s alleged intention to$ri$e government

oKcials in relationto !is case t!e comm"nication is notcovered $y t!e privilege as

t!e clientdoes not cons"lt t!e lawyerprofessionally. /t is not wit!in t!eprofession of a

lawyer to advise aclient as to !ow !e may commit acrime as a lawyer is not a g"nfor!ire. #!"s t!e attorney;clientprivilege does not attac! t!ere $eingno

professional employment in t!estrict sense.;#!e disclos"res were notindispensa$le

to protect !is rig!ts ast!ey were not pertinent to t!eforeclos"re case. /t

was improper fort!e respondent to "se it against t!ecomplainant in t!e foreclos"re

case asit was not t!e s"$=ect matter of litigation t!erein and

respondent-sprofessional competence and legaladvice were not $eing attac0ed in

saidcase.

5isposition

/7 8/@ @'4Frespondent Atty. sse& L. %ilapan isordered s"spended from t!epracticeof law for a period of si& (N) mont!se,ective "pon receipt of

t!is5ecision. Let a copy of t!is 5ecision$e f"rnis!ed t!e Kce of t!e +arCondant

and t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines. #!e Co"rtAdministrator is directed to

circ"latet!is order of s"spension to all co"rtsin t!e co"ntry.% 4545.

3.4. 7o. L;9N1 %eptem$er 21 199

+LA75/7A 3AI+A '/LA5 petitioner

vs.

H% 3E#/44V 5A8/5 8/C7# H. F4A7C/%C HAC+ A%%A5 and %L/I HAC+A%%A5 respondents.

>etitioner alleged t!at s!e and t!e co"nsel for t!e defendant !ad an attorney;client

relations!ip wit! !er w!en $efore t!e trial of t!e case s!e went to defendant-s

co"nsel gave !im t!e papers of t!e case and ot!er information relevant t!ereto

alt!o"g! s!e was not a$le to pay !im legal fees. #!at respondent-s law rm mailed

to t!e plainti, a written opinion over !is signat"re on t!e merits of !er caseP t!at

t!is opinion was reac!ed on t!e $asis of papers s!e !ad s"$mitted at !is oKceP t!at

Irs. 'iladoSs p"rpose in s"$mitting t!ose papers was to sec"re Attorney FranciscoSs

professional services. Atty. Francisco appeared as co"nsel for defendant and

plainti, did not o$=ect to it "ntil () mont!s after. #!en plainti, moved to dismiss

t!e case $etween !er and defendant.

/ss"e: @as t!ere an attorney;client relations!ip $etween plainti, and Atty.

Francisco

'eld: B%. /n order to constit"te t!e relation a professional one and not merely one


21/28

of principal and agent t!e attorneys m"st $e employed eit!er to give advice "pon a

legal point to prosec"te or defend an action in co"rt of ="stice or to prepare and

draft in legal form s"c! papers as deeds $ills contracts and t!e li0e.

#o constit"te professional employment it is not essential t!at t!e client s!o"ld !ave

employed t!e attorney professionally on any previo"s occasion. /t is not necessaryt!at any retainer s!o"ld !ave $een paid promised or c!arged forP neit!er is it

material t!at t!e attorney cons"lted did not afterward "nderta0e t!e case a$o"t

w!ic! t!e cons"ltation was !ad. /f a person in respect to !is $"siness a,airs or

tro"$les of any 0ind cons"lts wit! !is attorney in !is professional capacity wit! t!e

view to o$taining professional advice or assistance and t!e attorney vol"ntarily

permits or ac"iesces in s"c! cons"ltation t!en t!e professional employment m"st

$e regarded as esta$lis!ed.

An attorney is employed;t!at is !e is engaged in !is professional capacity as a

lawyer or co"nselor;w!en !e is listening to !is clientSs preliminary statement of !is

case or w!en !e is giving advice t!ereon ="st as tr"ly as w!en !e is drawing !is

clientSs pleadings or advocating !is clientSs ca"se in open co"rt. An acceptance of

t!e relation is implied on t!e part of t!e attorney from !is acting in $e!alf of !is

client in p"rs"ance of a re"est $y t!e latter.

#!at only copies of pleadings already led in co"rt were f"rnis!ed to Attorney

Agrava and t!at t!is $eing so no secret comm"nication was transmitted to !im $y

t!e plainti, wo"ld not vary t!e sit"ation even if we s!o"ld discard Irs. 'iladoSs

statement t!at ot!er papers personal and private in c!aracter were t"rned in $y

!er. >recedents are at !and to s"pport t!e doctrine t!at t!e mere relation of

attorney and client o"g!t to precl"de t!e attorney from accepting t!e oppositepartySs retainer in t!e same litigation regardless of w!at information was received

$y !im from !is rst client.

An attorney on terminating !is employment cannot t!ereafter act as co"nsel

against !is client in t!e same general matter even t!o"g! w!ile acting for !is

former client !e ac"ired no 0nowledge w!ic! co"ld operate to !is clientSs

disadvantage in t!e s"$se"ent adverse employment

TA retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or co"nsel to ins"re and

sec"re !is f"t"re services and ind"ce !im to act for t!e client. /t is intended to

rem"nerate co"nsel for $eing deprived $y $eing retained $y one party of t!eopport"nity of rendering services to t!e ot!er and of receiving pay from !im and

t!e payment of s"c! fee in t!e a$sence of an e&press "nderstanding to t!e

contrary is neit!er made nor received in payment of t!e services contemplatedP its

payment !as no relation to t!e o$ligation of t!e client to pay !is attorney for t!e

services w!ic! !e !as retained !im to perform.T


22/28

Felicisimo Iontano vs /+>

>77#: >/7%

A75 Atty. HEA7 %. 5ALCA respondents.

4 % L E # / 7

E7A7 H.:

/n a veried complaint led $efore t!is Co"rt on Iarc! 9 199 complainant

Felicisimo I. Iontano c!arged Atty. H"an 5ealca wit! miscond"ct and prays t!at !e

$e sternly dealt wit administratively. #!e complaintY1ZY1Z is s"mmariJed as

follows:

1. n 7ovem$er 1 1992 t!e complainant !ired t!e services of Atty. H"an %. 5ealca

as !is co"nsel in colla$oration wit! Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in a case pending

$efore t!e Co"rt of Appeals doc0eted as CA;3.4. C8 7o. *ONO w!erein t!e

complainant was t!e plainti,;appellant.

2. #!e parties agreed "pon attorney-s fees in t!e amo"nt of >1G. fty

percent (GX) of w!ic! was paya$le "pon acceptance of t!e case and t!e remaining$alance "pon t!e termination of t!e case. Accordingly complainant paid respondent

t!e amo"nt of >OG. representing GX of t!e attorney-s fee.

*. #!ereafter even $efore t!e respondent co"nsel !ad prepared t!e appellant-s

$rief and contrary to t!eir agreement t!at t!e remaining $alance $e paya$le after

t!e termination of t!e case Atty. 5ealca demanded an additional payment from

complainant. Complainant o$liged $y paying t!e amo"nt of >..

. >rior to t!e ling of t!e appellant-s $rief respondent co"nsel again demand


23/28

payment of t!e remaining $alance of *G.. @!en complainant was "na$le to do

so respondent lawyer wit!drew !is appearance as complainant-s co"nsel wit!o"t

!is prior 0nowledge andor conformity. 4et"rning t!e case folder to t!e complainant

respondent co"nsel attac!ed a 7ote dated Fe$r"ary 2 199*Y1ZY2Z stating:

2 Fe$r"ary 199

>epe and 5el IontanoFor $rea0ing yo"r promise since yo" do not want to f"lll yo"r end of t!e $argain

!ere-s yo"r reward:

'encefort! yo" lawyer for yo"rselves. 'ere are yo"r papers.

Ho!nny

Complainant claimed t!at s"c! cond"ct $y respondent co"nsel e&ceeded t!e et!ical

standards of t!e law profession and prays t!at t!e latter $e sternly dealt wit!

administratively. Complainant later on led motions praying for t!e imposition of t!e

ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment.

After respondent co"nsel led !is comment on t!e complaint t!e Co"rt in t!e

4esol"tion of A"g"st 1 199 referred t!e case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e

>!ilippines (/+>) for investigation report and recommendation.

#!e /nvestigating Commissioner fo"nd respondent co"nsel g"ilty of "nprofessional

cond"ct and recommended t!at !e $e severely reprimanded. 'owever in a

4esol"tionY1ZY*Z $y t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors on H"ly 2N 199O it was resolved t!at

t!e penalty recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner meted to respondent

$y amended to t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension from t!e practice of law for !aving

$een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic condence regarding !is

d"ty as a lawyer.

4espondent co"nsel so"g!t reconsideration of t!e aforementioned resol"tion of t!e

/+> alleging t!at t!e latter misappre!ended t!e facts and t!at in any case !e did

not deserve t!e penalty imposed. #!e tr"e facts according to !im are t!efollowing:

1. Complainant is $eing represented $y Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in !is case on

appealP

2. 5"e to t!e ailment of Atty. 3erona-s da"g!ter !e co"ld not prepare and s"$mit

complainant-s appellant-s $rief on timeP

*. Complainant went to t!e respondent to do ="st t!at i.e. prepare and s"$mit !is

appellant-s $rief on time at t!e agreed fee of >1G. GX down and GX "pon

its completionP

. @or0ing overtime respondent was a$le to nis! t!e appellant-s $rief a!ead of its

deadline so !e advised t!e complainant a$o"t its completion wit! t!e re"est t!att!e remaining $alance of >OG. $e paid. Complainant paid >. only

promising to pay t!e >*G. tomorrow or on later partic"lar date. >lease

ta0e note t!at at t!is ="nct"re t!ere was already a $reac! of t!e agreement on

complainant-s part.

G. @!en t!at tomorrow or on a later partic"lar date came respondent t!r" a

messenger re"ested t!e complainant to pay t!e >*G. as promised $"t word

was sent t!at !e will again pay tomorrow or on later date. #!is promise;non;


24/28

payment cycle went on repeatedly "ntil t!e last day of t!e ling of t!e $rief. >lease

ta0e note again t!at it was not t!e respondent $"t t!e complainant w!o sets t!e

date w!en !e will pay yet fails to pay as promisedP

N. ven wit!o"t $eing paid completely respondent of !is own free will and accord

led complainant-s $rief on timeP

O. After t!e $rief was led respondent tried to collect from t!e complainant t!eremaining $alance of >*G. $"t t!e latter made !imself scarce. As t!e records

wo"ld s!ow s"c! >*G. remains "npaid "ntil nowP

. %ensing t!at somet!ing was amiss respondent sent t!e Fe$r"ary 2 199* note

and case folder to t!e complainant !oping t!at t!e latter wo"ld see personally t!e

former a$o"t it to settle t!e matter $etween t!emP

9. 'owever instead of seeing t!e respondent complainant led t!is caseP

1. 4espondent was constrained to le !is wit!drawal wit! t!e Co"rt of Appeals

$eca"se of t!is case to avoid f"rt!er mis"nderstanding since !e was t!e one w!o

signed t!e appellant-s $rief alt!o"g! Atty. 3erona was !is co"nsel of record. %"c!

wit!drawal was accordingly granted $y t!e appellate co"rtP

&&& &&& &&&.Y1ZYZ

4espondent co"nsel f"rt!er averred t!at complainant-s ref"sal to pay t!e agreed

lawyer-s fees measly as it was was deli$erate and in $ad fait!P !ence !is

wit!drawal as co"nsel was ="st et!ical and proper. 4espondent co"nsel concl"ded

t!at not only was t!e penalty of s"spension !ars! for !is act of merely trying to

collect payment for !is services rendered $"t it indirectly wo"ld p"nis! !is family

since !e was t!e sole $readwinner wit! c!ildren in sc!ool and !is wife terminally ill

wit! cancer.

/n its 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129 dated cto$er 2G 199O t!e /+> denied Atty.

5ealca-s motion for reconsideration to wit:

&&&4%L85 # 57B Atty. 5ealca-s Iotion For 4econsideration of t!e +oard-s

5ecision in t!e a$ove;entitled case t!ere $eing no s"$stantive reason to reverse t!e

nding t!erein. Ioreover t!e motion is improperly laid t!e remedy of t!e

respondent is to le t!e appropriate pleading wit! t!e %"preme Co"rt wit!in fteen

(1G) days from receipt of notice of said 5ecision p"rs"ant to %ec. 12 YcZ of 4"le 1*9;

+.Y1ZYGZ

n 5ecem$er 1 199O t!is Co"rt noted t!e following pleadings led in t!e present

complaint

(a) notice and a copy of 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1G dated H"ly 2N 199O of t!e

/ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines amending t!e recommendation of t!e /nvestigatingCommissioner of reprimand to t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension of respondent from t!e

practice of law for !aving $een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic

condence regarding !is d"ty as a lawyerP

($) complainant-s motion for praying for t!e imposition of t!e ma&im"m penalty of

dis$armentP

(c) motion dated %eptem$er 1G 199O of respondent for reconsideration of t!e

aforesaid resol"tion of H"ly 2N 199OP


25/28

(d) commentopposition of respondent praying t!at t!e motion for t!e imposition of

t!e ma&im"m penalty $e deniedP

(e) comment of complainant praying t!at t!e penalty of t!ree (*) mont!s

s"spension for t!e practice of law as recommended $y t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e

>!ilippines p"rs"ant to 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1G $e raised to a !eavier penaltyP

(f) commentmanifestationopposition of complainant praying t!at t!e respondent$e dis$arredP and

(g) re=oinder of respondent praying t!at t!is case $e dismissed for $eing $aseless.

Y1ZYNZ

and referred t!e same to t!e /+> for eval"ation and report.

/n compliance t!erewit! on Iarc! 2 199 t!e /+> iss"ed 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9;2

referring t!e a$ove;entitled case to Commissioner 8i$ar for eval"ation report and

recommendation in view of t!e Iotion for 4econsideration granted $y t!e %"preme

Co"rt.

#!e /nvestigating Commissioner after referring t!e case recommended t!at !is

original recommendation of t!e imposition of t!e penalty of reprimand $e

maintained noting t!at respondent co"nsel !ad served t!e /+> well as >resident of

t!e %orsogon C!apter.Y1ZYOZ Accordingly on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999 t!e /+> +oard of

3overnors iss"ed t!e following resol"tion:

4%LE#/7 7. [///;99;

&&&

4%L85 to A5># and A>>48 as it is !ere$y A5>#5 and A>>485 t!e

4eport and 4ecommendation of t!e /nvestigating Commissioner in t!e a$ove;

entitled case !erein made part of t!is 4esol"tion5ecision as Anne& AP and

nding t!e recommendation f"lly s"pported $y t!e evidence on record and t!e

applica$le laws and r"les t!e Iotion for 4econsideration $e granted and t!at t!e

penalty of 4>4/IA75 earlier recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner $eimposed on Atty. H"an %. 5ealca.Y1ZYZ

Complainant as0ed t!e /+> to reconsider t!e foregoing resol"tion $"t t!e motion

was denied.Y1ZY9Z

n April 1 2 complainant led wit! t!is Co"rt a petition for review on

certiorari in connection wit! Administrative Case 7o. 21G against t!e /+> and

respondent co"nsel averring t!at t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors committed grave

a$"se of discretion w!en it overt"rned its earlier resol"tion and granted respondent

co"nsel-s motion for reconsideration on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999. 'e claimed t!at t!e

earlier resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration iss"ed on cto$er 2G

199O !ad already $ecome nal and e&ec"toryP !ence any f"rt!er action or motions"$se"ent to s"c! nal and e&ec"tory ="dgment s!all $e n"ll and void.

@!en t!e Co"rt iss"ed t!e resol"tion of 5ecem$er 1 199O treating t!e several

pleadings led in t!e present complaint it s!o"ld $e noted t!at t!e /+> resol"tion

denying respondent-s motion for reconsideration (4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129) dated

cto$er 2G 199O for some reason !ad not yet reac!ed t!is Co"rt. As of t!at date

t!e only /+> resol"tion attac!ed to t!e records of t!e case was 4esol"tion 7o. [//;

9O;G amending t!e administrative sanction from reprimand to t!ree mont!s


26/28

s"spension. 'ence at t!e time t!e pleadings were referred $ac0 to t!e /+> in t!e

same resol"tion t!e Co"rt was not aware t!at t!e /+> !ad already disposed of t!e

motion for reconsideration led $y respondent co"nsel.

#!"s w!en t!e /+> was informed of t!e said Co"rt resol"tion it constr"ed t!e same

as granting Atty. 5ealca-s motion for reconsideration and as an order for /+> to

cond"ct a re;eval"ation of t!e case. #!e /+> ass"med t!at its resol"tion of cto$er2G 199O was already considered $y t!is Co"rt w!en it referred t!e case $ac0 to t!e

/+>. /t failed to notice t!at its resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration was

not among t!ose pleadings and resol"tion referred $ac0 to it.

'ence on t!e strengt! of t!is Co"rt-s resol"tion w!ic! it !ad inadvertently

misconstr"ed t!e /+> cond"cted a re;eval"ation of t!e case and came "p wit! t!e

assailed resol"tion now so"g!t to $e reversed. #!e Co"rt !olds t!at t!e error is not

attri$"ta$le to t!e /+>. /t is regretta$le t!at t!e proced"ral inrmity alleged $y

complainant act"ally arose from a mere oversig!t w!ic! was attri$"ta$le to neit!er

party.

3oing into t!e merits we aKrm t!e ndings made $y t!e /+> t!at complainant

engaged t!e services of respondent lawyer only for t!e preparation and s"$mission

of t!e appellant-s $rief and t!e attorney-s fees was paya$le "pon t!e completion

and s"$mission of t!e appellant-s $rief and not "pon t!e termination of t!e case.

#!ere is s"Kcient evidence w!ic! indicates complainant-s willingness to pay t!e

attorney-s fees. As agreed "pon complainant paid !alf of t!e fees in t!e amo"nt of

>OG. "pon acceptance of t!e case. And w!ile t!e remaining $alance was not

yet d"e as it was agreed to $e paid only "pon t!e completion and s"$mission of t!e

$rief complainant nonet!eless delivered to respondent lawyer >. as t!e

latter demanded. #!is notwit!standing Atty. 5ealca wit!drew !is appearance

simply $eca"se of complainant-s fail"re to pay t!e remaining $alance of >*G.

w!ic! does not appear to $e deli$erate. #!e sit"ation was aggravated $yrespondent co"nsel-s note to complainant wit!drawing as co"nsel w!ic! was

co"c!ed in impolite and ins"lting lang"age.Y1ZY1Z

3iven t!e a$ove circ"mstances was Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct ="st and proper

@e nd Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct "n$ecoming of a mem$er of t!e legal profession.

Ender Canon 22 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility lawyer s!all wit!draw !is

services only for good ca"se and "pon notice appropriate in t!e circ"mstances.

Alt!o"g! !e may wit!draw !is services w!en t!e client deli$erately fails to pay t!e

fees for t!e servicesY1ZY11Z "nder t!e circ"mstances of t!e present case Atty.

5ealca-s wit!drawal was "n="stied as complainant did not deli$erately fail to pay

!im t!e attorney-s fees. /n fact complainant e&erted !onest e,orts to f"lll !iso$ligation. 4espondent-s contempt"o"s cond"ct does not spea0 well of a mem$er of

t!e $ar considering t!at t!e amo"nt owing to !im was only >*G.. 4"le 2. of

Canon 2 mandates t!at a lawyer s!all avoid controversies wit! clients concerning

!is compensation and s!all resort to ="dicial action only to prevent imposition

in="stice or fra"d. %adly for not so large a s"m owed to !im $y complainant

respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance wit! t!e demands of t!e Code.

#!e Co"rt !owever does not agree wit! complainant-s contention t!at t!e


27/28

ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment s!o"ld $e imposed on respondent lawyer. #!e

power to dis$ar m"st $e e&ercised wit! great ca"tion. nly in a clear case of

miscond"ct t!at serio"sly a,ects t!e standing and c!aracter of t!e lawyer as an

oKcer of t!e Co"rt and mem$er of t!e $ar will dis$arment $e imposed as a penalty.

/t s!o"ld never $e decreed w!ere a lesser penalty s"c! as temporary s"spension

wo"ld accomplis! t!e end desired.Y1ZY12Z /n t!e present case reprimand is deemeds"Kcient.

@'4F4 in view of t!e foregoing respondent Atty. H"an %. 5ealca is

4>4/IA755 wit! a warning t!at repetition of t!e same act will $e dealt wit! more

severely.

% 4545.

+A75 8. F/3E4A%

1 Han. 2

Facts

:/n a civil case 5 led a motion to dismiss and t!is was granted. > claimed t!at

t!emotion to dismiss is invalid since at t!e time of ling Atty. B no longer

represented 5.

/ss"e

:@!et!er or not Atty. B ceased to $e 5-s co"nsel

'eld

:7o. 4epresentation contin"es "ntil t!e co"rt dispenses wit! t!e services of co"nselinaccordance wit! %ec. 2N 4"le 1*. Co"nsel may $e validly s"$stit"ted only if t!e

followingre"isites are complied wit!: (1) new co"nsel les a written application for

s"$stit"tionP (2) t!eclient-s written consent is o$tainedP and (*) t!e written consent

of t!e lawyer to $e s"$stit"ted issec"red if it can still $eP if t!e written consent can

no longer $e o$tained t!en t!e applicationfor s"$stit"tion m"st carry proof t!at

notice of t!e motion !as $een served on t!e attorney to $es"$stit"ted in t!e

manner re"ired $y t!e r"les.

+A75 8. F/3E4A%

1 Han. 2

Facts

:/n a civil case 5 led a Iotion to 5ismiss on t!e gro"nd t!at > lost !is capacity to

s"ed"ring t!e pendency of t!e case. > assailed t!e motion saying t!at it was too

late since > !adalready nis!ed presenting !is evidence.

/ss"e


28/28

:@!et!er t!e motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e granted

'eld

:Bes. #!e period to le a motion to dismiss depends "pon t!e circ"mstances of t!e

case.%ec. 1 of 4"le 1N re"ires t!at in general a motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e led

wit!in t!ereglementary period for ling a responsive pleading. +"t t!e co"rt allows

a defendant to le amotion to dismiss on t!e ,. gro"nds: (1) lac0 of ="risdictionP (2)

litis pendentiaP (*) lac0 of ca"seof actionP and () discovery d"ring trial of evidence

t!at wo"ld constit"te a gro"nd for dismissal.

Digests Ethics 18 Onwards Digestsssss

Documents

Transcript of Digests Ethics 18 Onwards Digestsssss