A.M. No.

3216 March 16, 1992 conveyed 20 hectares of land to herein

DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO, respondent and her husband as their
petitioner, vs. ATTY. JOSEPHINE Attorney's fees for legal services
PALOGAN EDUARTE, respondent. rendered. All the titles of the lands
subject of the deeds of absolute sale
R E S O L U T I O N PER CURIAM:
and the deed of conveyance however
This is a complaint for the disbarment remained in the name of Antonia
of respondent Atty. Josephine Palogan- Ulibari.
Eduarte originally filed with this Court
On April 4, 1988, Dominga Velasco-
on April 18, 1988. On August 10, 1989,
Ordonio filed this complaint for
the Commission on Bar Discipline of
disbarment against herein respondent
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
on the basis of an affidavit executed
to which the case was referred for
by her mother Antonia Ulibari on
investigation, submitted a report
March 2, 1988 stating that affiant
confirming in substance the charge of
never conveyed the subject parcel of
violation of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code
land to respondent as her attorney's
and part of the Oath of Office of a
fees and that the deeds of absolute
lawyer and recommending the
sale executed in favor of her children
suspension of herein respondent.
were not known to her (and that she
The evidence discloses that on July 18, received no consideration therefor).
1983, Antonia Ulibari filed with the
On August 10, 1989, the Investigation
RTC, Branch XXII, Cabagan, Isabela,
Commissioner submitted a report
Civil Case No. 391 for annulment of a
finding the charges to be true and
document (known as Affidavit of
recommending a one-year suspension
Adjudication of the Estate of Felicisimo
of the respondent from the practice of
Velasco and Quitclaim Thereof) against
law.
her children. The case was handled by
Atty. Henedino Eduarte, herein The first issue to be resolved is
respondent's husband, until his whether Antonia Ulibari was defrauded
appointment as RTC judge on October into signing the Deed of Conveyance
26, 1984. His wife, Atty. Josephine transferring to her lawyer (herein
Palogan-Eduarte, took over. On August respondent) the subject parcel of land
22, 1985, decision in Civil Case No. containing 298,420 square meters as
391 was rendered in favor of Antonia the latter's attorney's fees. It is clear
Ulibari. Except for Dominga Velasco- from Antonia Ulibari's affidavit and
Ordonio, one of the children of Antonia deposition that she never conveyed
Ulibari and complainant in the instant the said land to her lawyer as
case, the rest of the defendants did attorney's fees. Even granting for the
not appeal. On June 13, 1987, while sake argument that Antonia Ulibari
Civil Case No. 391 was pending appeal knowingly and voluntarily conveyed
in the Court of Appeals, Antonia Ulibari the subject property in favor of the
conveyed some parcels of her land to respondent and her husband, the
her children in the form of deeds of respondent, in causing the execution
absolute sale, prepared and notarized of the Deed of Conveyance during the
by herein respondent. Significantly, on pendency of the appeal of the case
the same day, Antonia Ulibari also involving the said property, has
violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code The last issue to be resolved is
which prohibits lawyers from whether respondent violated any law
"acquiring by assignment property and in preparing and notarizing the deeds
rights which may be the object of any of absolute sale in making it appear
litigation in which they may take part that there were considerations
by virtue of their profession." therefor, when in truth there were
none so received by the seller. In her
In the case at bar, the property (which
answer, respondent admitted that
includes the more than 20 hectares of
Antonia Ulibari did not actually sell the
land allegedly conveyed to the
parcels of land to her children for the
respondent) was already in actual
considerations stated in the deeds of
litigation first in the lower court and
sale and that she (respondent)
then in the Court of Appeals. Whether
"utilized the form of deed of sale as
the deed of conveyance was executed
the most convenient and appropriate
at the instance of the client driven by
document to effect the transfer of the
financial necessity or of the lawyers is
parcels of land to Antonia Ulibari's
of no moment (In re: Atty. Melchor E.
children in accordance with her wish
Ruste, 70 Phil. 243). "In either case, an
that said parcels of land be given to
attorney occupies a vantage position
them.
to press upon or dictate his terms to a
harrased client, in breach of the rule In so doing, respondent has manifestly
so amply protective of the confidential violated that part of her oath as a
relations, which must necessarily exist lawyer that she shall not do any
between attorney and client, and of falsehood. Not only that. In preparing
the rights of both." The act constitutes the documents which do not reflect
malpractice, even if the lawyer had the true transaction, respondent has
purchased the property in litigation. likewise violated
(Hernandez v. Villanueva, 40 Phil. 775;
Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
In re: Calderon, 7 Phil. 427). We agree
Responsibility which provides: Rule
with the Investigating Commissioner's
10.01. A lawyer shall not do any
opinion that the prohibition applies
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
when the lawyer has not paid money
any in court; nor shall be mislead or
for it and the property was merely
allow the court to be mislead by any
assigned to him in consideration of
artifice.
legal services rendered at a time when
the property is still the subject of a ACCORDINGLY, for having violated
pending case. For having improperly Article 1491 of the Civil Code,
acquired the subject property, under respondent is hereby ordered
the foregoing circumstances, suspended from the practice of law for
respondent has violated not only Art. a period of six (6) months, and, for
1491 of the Civil Code but also Rule 10 having stated falsehoods in the four
of the Canons of Professional Ethics (4) deeds of absolute sale she
which provides that "the lawyer should prepared and notarized, in violation of
not purchase any interest in the the lawyer's oath and Rule 10.01 of
subject matter of the litigation which the Code of Professional
he is conducting." Responsibility, respondent is also
ordered suspended from the practice
or law for a period of another six (6) ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Potenciano
months, resulting in a total period on should be subjected to disciplinary
one year, effective from the date this actions.
judgment becomes final. SUSPENSION
ORDERED. HELD: Yes. From the records, it appears
that Potenciano haphazardly prepared the
pleadings he wrote for the sisters. In fact,
Cantiller vs Potenciano the cases he filed for the sisters were all
dismissed for lack of cause of action.
In 1987, the sisters Ma. Libertad Cantiller Worse, he got P11k from the sisters but
and Peregrina Cantiller lost an ejectment never used the same for the case instead
case. The two were later introduced by a he pocketed it for himself. When he
friend to Atty. Humberto Potenciano. contracted the sisters, Potenciano, as a
Potenciano said he can help the sisters lawyer, bound himself to undertake his
because the judge handling the case was legal services with maximum effort until
his close friend. Potenciano, with the little the conclusion of the case. The failure to
time he got, immediately filed a petition to exercise due diligence or the
counter the order to vacate issued against abandonment of a clients cause makes
the sisters. He asked for P1,000.00 for his such lawyer unworthy of the trust which
fees from the sisters. the client had reposed on him.

But later on, the judge handling the case It is also of no moment that Potenciano
asked Potenciano to inhibit because of the had little time to prepare for the pleading.
fact that they are friends. Potenciano then When he accepted the case, his clients
asked an additional P2,000.00 from the reposed full faith in him. But he never
sisters. He said he needs to find another complemented the trust and faith reposed
judge who can rule in their favor. He also in him. He even bragged his closeness
asked another P10,000.00 from the with the judge and even intimated the
sisters. He said this amount is needed in need to buy another judge. Such actions
order for them to re-acquire their are reprehensible.
apartment. On top of the P10k, he also
asked for another P1k for additional Potenciano was suspended indefinitely
expenses. The sisters were able to pool until he can show to the court that he is fit
resources from friends just to raise the to practice law.
amount asked for by Potenciano.

It turned out however that the court never

Santiago vs Fojas
asked P10k from the parties nor was the
additional P1k asked by the court. Worse,
said amount (P11k) was never deposited FACTS:
in court. The sisters demanded
Potenciano to return the said amount but An expulsion case was faced by the
he failed to do so hence they filed an complainants contending that they have
administrative case against him. In his
illegally removed from the union (FEUFA)
defense, Potenciano claimed that the
sister were merely harassing him. membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. The
lower court resolved in favor of Salvador HELD:
and ordered the complainants to pay,
jointly and severally, Mr. Salvador. The Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14

case was then elevated to the Court of of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Appeals. The complainants lost in their Once he agrees to take up the cause of a

petition at the Court of Appeals due to client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such

abandonment, failure to act accordingly, cause and must always be mindful of the

or serious neglect of their counsel, Atty. trust and confidence reposed in him. This

Fojas to answer the civil complaint on an means that his client is entitled to the

expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured them benefit of any and every remedy and

that everything was in order and he had defense that is authorized by the law of

already answered the complaint. However, the land and he may expect his lawyer to

the appellants soon discovered that he assert every such remedy or defense. In

never answered it after all because, his motion for reconsideration of the

according to him, he was a very busy default order, the respondent explained

man. Atty. Fojas admitted his mistake in his non-filing of the required answer by

failing to file an answer for the expulsion impliedly invoking forgetfulness

case, but he alleges that it was cured by occasioned by a large volume and

his filing of a motion for reconsideration. pressure of legal work, while in his

However, such motion for reconsideration Comment in this case he attributes it to

was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his honest mistake and excusable neglect due

negligence with the reason that the case to his overzealousness to question the

was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas denial order of the trial court. Whether it

also asserts that he was about to appeal be the first or the second ground, the fact

the said decision to this Court, but his remains that the respondent did not

services as counsel for the complainants comply with his duty to file an answer.

and for the union were illegally and

Pressure and large volume of legal work
unilaterally terminated by complainant.
provide no excuse for the respondents
Complainants then filed for a disbarment
inability to exercise due diligence in the
case.
performance of his duty to file an answer.

ISSUE: Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his

full attention, diligence, skill, and
Whether the respondent committed competence, regardless of its importance
culpable negligence, as would warrant and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
disciplinary action, in failing to file for the free. Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18
complainants an answer of the Code of Professional Responsibility
 provided that De Mesa sold the property to Ailyn
which requires him to serve his clients, Gonzales for 3.8M. Then, in another notarized
deed made by Atty. Mas, it was stated that
the complainants herein, with diligence Gonzales received the funds from Stemmerik. In
preparing all these documents, Atty. Mas
and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof received 400K fee from Stemmerik. The latter
also gave Atty. Mas, the 3.8M purchase price to
which provides: A lawyer shall not which the latter issued a receipt.
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
Suddenly, Atty. Mas become scarce and no
and his negligence in connection therewith longer answer the calls of Stemmerik. When
Stemmerik visited the Phils, he engaged the
shall render him liable. service of the Fernandez Law Office and found
out the subject property is inalienable, being
located in the former U.S. military reservation.
Also, he was apprised that aliens cannot own
Atty. Fojass negligence is not excused by real properties in the Phils.
his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91
Meanwhile, Atty. Mas had already abandoned his
was in fact a losing cause. The Supreme office and his whereabouts is unknown.
Stemmerik filed an action for disbarment against
Court held that he should have seasonably Atty. Mas before the Commission on Bar
Discipline but Atty. Mas never appeared.
informed the complainants thereof. Rule
15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of ISSUE: WON Atty. Mas should be disbarred?

Professional Responsibility expressly HELD:

provides: A lawyer, when advising his YES!!! Lawyers, as members of a noble profession,
have the duty to promote respect for the law and
client, shall give a candid and honest uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women
opinion on the merits and probable results entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law
functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument
of the clients case, neither overstating nor of oppression or deception.
Respondent has been weighed by the exacting
understanding the prospects of the case. standards of the legal profession and has been found
wanting.

REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED Respondent committed a serious breach of his

oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal
profession.

By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell

the property to complainant and that de Mesa
thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made
the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he
falsified public documents and knowingly violated the
Anti-Dummy Law.

Stemmerik v. Mas
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution,
to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.21 That oath
FACTS is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It
is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept
Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. inviolable at all times.22
In one of his trips in the Philippines, he met Atty.
Mas. Since he was marveled at the beauty of the
Lawyers are servants of the law23 and the law is their
country, he wanted to buy a real property and
master. They should not simply obey the laws, they
consulted Atty. Mas. The latter told Stemmerik
that he could legally acquire a real property in should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto
the Phils. and even suggested a 86K hectare by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation. Indeed,
land in Subic, Zambales. Atty. Mas, as the atty.- that is the first precept of the Code of Professional
in-fact of Stemmerik bought the property from a Responsibility
certain Bonifacio de Mesa. The contract to sell
 It may well be doubted whether section 26 of Act No.
2347 is applicable to appeals from orders relating to
Islas vs Platon petitions for review, but assuming that such is the
case, the respondent judge was nevertheless, in our
It appears from the record that in December, 1920, opinion, fully justified in declining to certify the bill of
the herein petitioners filed a petition in the Court of exceptions in the present case. The bill was not
First Instance under section 38 of the Land presented until over three months after the notice of
Registration Act for the review of a decree in a land the order from which the petitioners desire to appeal
registration case. On March 23, 1921, the court should have reached their counsel in the ordinary
denied the petition for review without permitting the course of the mails. The notice was duly sent by
petitioners to present their evidence. Upon appeal to registered letter to counsel at his address in the City
this court the order denying the petition was of Manila and it is not intimated that the address was
reversed and the record remanded to the court below erroneous. There is nothing in the record to show
for the reception of evidence. 1 chanrobles virtual law that the postal authorities did not properly perform
library their duty and we must presume that the usual
notice of the arrival of the letter at the Manila post
The evidence having been received, the Court of First office was delivered at the office of said counsel. He
Instance on April 16, 1924, again denied the petition failed to claim the letter and it was returned to the
for a review and on May 5, 1924, the petitioners Court of First Instance marked "unclaimed ." His
herein filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was failure to receive a copy of the order in question was
heard and denied on the 17th of the same month and therefore entirely due to his own negligence of which
two days later due notice of the denial was sent to he cannot now be allowed to take advantage. As a
the attorney for the petitioners at his office address practicing lawyer it was his duty to so arrange
in Manila. The letter containing the notification was matters that official communications sent by mail
returned to the clerk of the Court of First Instance the would reach him promptly. Having failed to do so, he
latter part of June, 1924, marked "unclaimed." On and his clients must suffer the consequences of his
August 26, 1924, the petitioners presented their negligence. That he may have been absent from his
exception to the order of May 17th denying the office at the time the notification here in question
petition for a new trial and announced their intention arrived is no
to appeal to this court. A bill of exception was filed on excuse.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
August 29, 1924, but the trial court refused to law library
approve and certify it on the ground that the time for
presenting it had then The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied with
expired.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.
law library

On September 2, 1924, an order was entered

LEGARDA VS CA
declaring the decision in the land registration case
final, and on the 24th of the same month a writ of
FACTS: Petitioner Victoria Legarda was the
possession was issued directing the sheriff of the owner of a parcel of land and the
province to place the applicant for registration, the improvements located at 123 West
herein respondent, Filomena Ona, in possession of Avenue, Quezon City. On January 11, 1985
the land. The petitioners thereupon brought the respondent New Cathay House, Inc. filed a
present action for a writ of mandamus to compel the complaint against the petitioner for
respondent judge of the Court of First Instance to
approve and certify the bill of exceptions filed on
specific performance with preliminary
August 29, injunction and damages in RTC alleging
1924.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual that petitioner entered into a lease
law library agreement with the private respondent
through its representative, Roberto V.
Counsel for the petitioners argues that under section Cabrera, Jr., of the aforestated property of
26 of Act No. 2347 an appellant in a land registration petitioner. Respondent drew up the written
case has thirty days from the date upon which he contract and sent it to petitioner, that
receives a copy of the decision within which to
petitioner failed and refused to execute
present his bill of exceptions; that the order from
which his clients desire to appeal must be considered and sign the same despite demands of
a "decision" within the meaning of said section; that respondent.
as he never received a copy of the order, the thirty
days period had not begun to run at the time the bill Petitioner engaged the services of counsel
of exceptions here in question was to handle her case. Said counsel filed his
presented.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles appearance with an urgent motion for
virtual law library extension of time to file the answer within
ten (10) days from February 26, 1985.
However, said counsel failed to file the HELD: A lawyer owes entire devotion to
answer within the extended period prayed the interest of his client, warmth and zeal
for. Counsel for private respondent filed an in the maintenance and defense of his
ex-parte motion to declare petitioner in rights and the exertion of his utmost
default. This was granted by the trial court learning and ability, to the end that
on March 25, 1985 and private respondent nothing can be taken or withheld from his
was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. client except in accordance with the law.
Thereafter, on March 25, 1985, the trial He should present every remedy or
court rendered its decision. defense authorized by the law in support
of his client's cause, regardless of his own
Said counsel for petitioner received a copy personal views. In the full discharge of his
of the judgment but took no steps to have duties to his client, the lawyer should not
the same set aside or to appeal therefrom. be afraid of the possibility that he may
Thus, the judgment became final and displease the judge or the general public.
executory. The property of petitioner was 12

sold at public auction to satisfy the

judgment in favor of private respondent. Judged by the actuations of said counsel in
The property was sold to Roberto V. this case, he has miserably failed in his
Cabrera, Jr., representative of private duty to exercise his utmost learning and
respondent, and a certificate of sale was ability in maintaining his client's cause. 13
issued in his favor. The redemption period It is not only a case of simple negligence
expired after one year so a final deed of as found by the appellate court, but of
sale was issued by the sheriff in favor of reckless and gross negligence, so much so
Cabrera, who in turn appears to have that his client was deprived of her
transferred the same to private property without due process of law.
respondent.
The Court finds that the negligence of
During all the time, the petitioner was counsel in this case appears to be so gross
abroad. When, upon her return, she and inexcusable. This was compounded by
learned, to her great shock, what the fact, that after petitioner gave said
happened to her case and property, she counsel another chance to make up for his
nevertheless did not lose faith in her omissions by asking him to file a petition
counsel. She still asked Atty. Coronel to for annulment of the judgment in the
take such appropriate action possible appellate court, again counsel abandoned
under the circumstances. the case of petitioner in that after he
received a copy of the adverse judgment
of the appellate court, he did not do
As above related, said counsel filed a
anything to save the situation or inform
petition for annulment of judgment and its
his client of the judgment. He allowed the
amendment in the Court of Appeals. But
judgment to lapse and become final. Such
that was all he did. After an adverse
reckless and gross negligence should not
judgment was rendered against petitioner,
be allowed to bind the petitioner.
of which counsel was duly notified, said
Petitioner was thereby effectively deprived
counsel did not inform the petitioner about
of her day in court.
it. He did not even ask for a
reconsideration thereof, or file a petition
for review before this Court. Thus, the Thus, We have before Us a case where to
judgment became final. It was only upon enforce an alleged lease agreement of the
repeated telephone inquiries of petitioner property of petitioner, private respondent
that she learned from the secretary of her went to court, and that because of the
counsel of the judgment that had gross negligence of the counsel for the
unfortunately become final. petitioner, she lost the case as well as the
title and ownership of the property, which
is worth millions. The mere lessee then
now became the owner of the property. Its
By express mandate of the said Rule, the appellant is
true owner then, the petitioner, now is
duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal.
consigned to penury all because her Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his
lawyer appear. part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to
perform this duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his
appeal.
NATIVIDAD UY vs. ATTY.
In the case of
BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN, A.C. No. 8252 , July 5. Respondents failure to file the required pleadings
21, 2009, where the respondent Atty. Braulio RG is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Tansinsin was suspended for three months by the Professional Resposibility which states:
Philippine Supreme Court, the following doctrines
were pronounced by the Court: Rule 18.03-A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
1. Verily, respondents failure to file the required therewith shall render him liable.
pleadings and to inform his client about the
developments in her case fall below the standard
exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment 6. Aside from failing to file the required pleadings,
to their clients cause. respondent also lacked candor in dealing with his
client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the
2. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full status of her ejectment case.
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless
of its importance, and whether he accepts it for a fee It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is
or for free. A lawyer should serve his client in a one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for
conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he the client to be adequately and fully informed about
should provide a quality of service at least equal to the developments in his case. A client should never
that which he, himself, would expect of a competent be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to
lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in
clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise the lawyer so retained in particular and in the legal
ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care profession in general. Respondents act
and skill demanded by the character of the business demonstrates utter disregard of Rule 18.04, Canon
he undertakes to do, to protect the clients interests 18, Code of Professional Resposibility, which states:
and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor;
and his client may reasonably expect him to Rule 18.04A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
discharge his obligations diligently. the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for
3. It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment information.
case) required the parties to submit their respective
position papers. However, respondent did not bother 7. All told, we rule and so hold that on account of
to do so, in total disregard of the court order. In respondents failure to protect the interest of
addition, respondent failed to file the memorandum complainant, respondent indeed violated Rules 18.03
on appeal this time with the RTC where complainants and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
appeal was then pending. Civil Case No. C-20717 Responsibility. Respondent is reminded that the
was, therefore, dismissed on that ground alone. practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only
upon those who are competent intellectually,
4. The importance of filing a memorandum on appeal academically and morally.
cannot be gainsaid. Section 7 (b) of Rule 40 of the
Rules of Court states: 8. The appropriate sanction is within the sound
discretion of this Court. In cases of similar nature, the
SEC. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. penalty imposed by the Court consisted of either a
reprimand or a fine of five hundred pesos with
x x x x. warning, suspension of three months or six months,
and even disbarment in aggravated cases.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall
be the duty of the appellant to submit a Considering the circumstances surrounding the
memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors instant case, a three-month suspension from the
imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be practice of law is the proper penalty.
furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the appellants
Memorandum, the appellee may file his
memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a Garcia vs Bala
memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the
appeal. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence
x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
/2005/nov2005/ac_5039.htm
Republic vs Arro Purchase and ability to pay, which was found in
the investigation made by the appellee. The
case was set for hearing on February 7, 1961.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/
The appellants counsel, Atty. Bonifacio Taega
session/0000015b9f47ee556cb38d5f0 failed to notify the appellants of the scheduled
03600fb002c009e/t/?o=False hearing. The case was heard, the plaintiff
introduced evidence showing ownership of the
property. The judgment held that the plaintiff is
the owner of the land situated in Quezon City,
Legarda vs CA supra ^ and that the defendants without the consent
and knowledge of the plaintiff entered and
constructed their houses upon then premises,
depriving the plaintiff of the possession of the
same parcel of land. Tiongco and Escasa were
PHHC v. Tiongco ordered to remove their houses and the
improvements on them, and pay the plaintiff
G.R. No. L-18891 November 28, 1964 the sum of Php 26.00 per month from the date
of occupation, until premises in question is
FACTS: restored to the plaintiff, and Php. 200.00 in
attorneys fees.
Appellants Melchor Tiongco and Melchor
Escasa were registered squatters of lot No. 23 Although the above judgment was received by
Block No. E-156, containing an area of about counsel for the appellants, he never informed
460 sq. meters. Long before the People's the latter about the matter. Neither did he take
Homesite & Housing Corporation declared a steps to protect the interests of his clients, by
parcel of land embraced in TCT 1356 of the presenting a motion for reconsideration and/or
Quezon City Register of Deeds. Appellants filing a petition to set aside judgment.
were already occupying the portion and have Appellants only came to know that an adverse
introduced improvements thereon and had decision had been promulgated when on May
declared the property for taxation purposes. In 12, 1961, the Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City,
the census list of the corporation, the served them a copy of writ of execution
appellants were considered as bonafide ordering them to vacate the premises and to
occupants of the property and during the same pay the amounts ordained therein. Appellants
period, they had applied to purchase the lost no time in contacting their counsel, Atty.
property from the PHHC. They found out later, Taega, and failing to do so, they engaged the
that the same had already been awarded to services of Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, who presented
Asuncion Enverga, a relative of a Congressman, with the lower Court a Petition for Relief from
in spite of the fact that she had not occupied Judgment, accompanied by affidavits of merit.
the property at any time, nor introduced any The Presiding Judge cited Atty. Taega to
improvements. Immediately upon the appear before him, because of the seriousness
discovery of the award a complaint was lodged of the charges. Atty. Taega admitted to the
by Tiongco and Escasa with the appellee PHHC. court that he did not inform the appellants of
After a preliminary investigation of the the hearing, as he forgot all about the same;
complaint, Eugenio Alvarado, Jr., Chief of that he received the decision but did not also
Investigation & Research Section, PHHC inform the appellants about it, because he
Investigating Committee, with the forgot all about the case, explaining that he
recommendation that they have priority rights had so many ejectment cases then, that the
to the property, which was given after two orders and decisions in the case just escaped
investigations. The matter has been submitted his attention.
to the Executive Committee to render their
judgment. Issue: whether or not Atty. Taegas conduct
constitutes negligence of his duties as a lawyer.
However, no action has been taken on the
report. Four months after the filing of the
complaint, the PHHC instituted an action for
Recovery of Possession in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City, the appellant HELD:
interposes the defense of Priority of Right to
There was something fishy and suspicious claims in connection with the death of
concerning the actuations of former counsel their husbands, both P.C. soldiers.
Atty. Taega in this case. He did not give any
significance at all, to the processes of the They handed Arcangel pertinent
court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights documents and also affixed their
of his clients. There was nothing which could signatures on blank papers.
have prevented the appellants from attending
the trial of the case themselves, or moving for After which, they noticed that respondent
a reconsideration of the decision or taking the lost interest and no progress was made.
necessary appeal from the judgment, if only After 6 years they finally asked respondent
their counsel had informed them of the court's to return the said documents but the latter
processes. Counsel had simply ignored the
refused.
rights of his clients by giving a lame and flimsy
explanation that the court's processes just Upon questioning by Fiscal Rana to whom
escaped his attention. He deprived them of
the case was referred by the Solicitor
their day in court.
General respondent admitted having
There should be no dispute regarding the received the documents but explained
doctrine that normally notice to counsel is that it was for photostating purposes only.
notice to parties, and that such doctrine has
beneficient effects upon the prompt His failure to immediately return them was
dispensation of justice. Its application to a due to complainants refusal to hand him
given case, however, should be looked into and money to pay for the photostating costs
adopted, according to the surrounding which prevented him from withdrawing the
circumstances; otherwise, in the court's desire documents.
to make a short cut of the proceedings, it might
foster, wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous Anyway, he had already advanced the
collusions to the detriment of justice. It would expenses himself and turned over the
then be easy for one lawyer to sell one's rights documents to the fiscal.
down the river, by just alleging that he just
forgot every process of the court affecting his Fiscal found respondents explanation
clients, because he was so busy. Under this satisfactory and recommended the
circumstance, one should not insist that a
respondents exoneration.
notice to such irresponsible lawyer is also a
notice to his clients. However, Sol Gen feels that respondent
The attention of the trial court is invited to the deserves at least a severe reprimand
censurable conduct of Atty. Bonifacio Taega in considering:
this particular case, and to take such action as
may be warranted in the premises 1) his failure to attend to complainants
pension claims for 6 years;

2) his failure to immediately return the

Escudero vs Dulay documents despite repeated demands
upon him, and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri198
8/feb1988/gr_l_60578_1988.html 3) his failure to return to complainant
Pasion, allegedly all of her documents.

Issue: WON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of

Republic vs Arro Supra professional non-feasance

Held: No.
BLANZA VS ARCANGEL
Respondents explanation for the delay in
Facts:
filing the claims in returning the
On April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered documents has not been controverted by
to help them in their respective pension complainants.
On the contrary, they admitted that retaliation for the administrative cases he filed
respondent asked them to shoulder the against RBCIs counsel and the trial court judges
photostating expenses but they did not of Bohol.
give him any money. Hence,
complainants are partly to blame.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed
Moreover, the documents and their to present any evidence to prove their
photostats were actually returned by allegations. Respondent added that the affidavits
respondent during the fiscals attached to the complaint were never identified,
investigation with him paying for the affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and that
photostating costs himself. none of the documentary exhibits were originals
As for the alleged failure of the respondent or certified true copies.
to all her documents to complainant
Pasion, the former denies this. the ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his
affidavit of Mrs. Blanza pardoning oath and the CPR Canon 19.
respondent cannot prejudice
complainant Pasion because res inter HELD: The Court held that respondent was
alios acta alteri nocere non debet. guilty as charged and suspended for a year. The
first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
RBCI v FLORIDO uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the
land. It is the lawyers duty to promote respect
for the law and legal processes and to abstain
A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010
from activities aimed at defiance of the law or
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CARPIO, J.:
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer
shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law. It is his duty to counsel his
FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a
clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in
complaint for disbarment against respondent.
seeking justice and refrain from doing an
RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath
intentional wrong to their adversaries.
and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients,
administration of justice. To that end, his clients
Nazareno-Relampagos group, through force and
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct
intimidation, forcibly took over the management
ought to and must always be scrupulously
and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly
observant of the law and ethics.Any means, not
evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager,
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to
destroyed the banks vault, and installed their
by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion
own staff to run the bank.
to his clients cause, is condemnable and
unethical.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint
for malicious mischief filed against him by
RBCI was already dismissed; while the
complaint for grave coercion was ordered
suspended because of the existence of a
prejudicial question. Respondent said that the
disbarment complaint was filed against him in
 an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding."
WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio? NO,
reprimand only

Held:
Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file
or threaten to file any unfounded or
baseless criminal case or cases against
the adversaries of his client designed to
secure leverage to compel the
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own
FERNANDO MARTIN PENA vs. cases against the lawyer's client.
ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO
In the case at bar, the threats are not only
A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007 unethical for violating Canon 19, but they
also amount to blackmail. Blackmail is
"the extortion of money from a person by
Facts: threats of accusation or exposure or
opposition in the public prints,obtaining
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal
of value from a person as a condition of
counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal refraining from making an accusation
dismissal case before the National Labor against him, or disclosing some secret
Relations Commission (NLRC) against calculated to operate to his prejudice."
complainant Fernando Martin Pena. The letter in this case contains more than
Hufana is praying for claim for separation just a simple demand to pay. It even
pay, but Pena rejected the claim as contains a threat to file retaliatory
baseless. charges against complainant which have
Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter nothing to do with his client's claim for
reiterating his client's claim for separation separation pay. Indeed, letters of this
pay. Through his letter, he threatened nature are definitely proscribed by the
complainant that should Pena fail to pay Code of Professional Responsibility.
the amounts they propose as settlement, It was not respondent's intention to point
he would file and claim bigger amounts out complainant's violations of the law as
including moral damages, as well as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the
multiple charges such as tax evasion, letter even contains an implied promise to
falsification of documents, and "keep silent" about the said violations if
cancellation of business license to operate payment of the claim is made on the date
due to violations of laws. indicated.
DECISION: While the writing of the letter
Issue: went beyond ethical standards, we hold
that disbarment is too severe a penalty to
WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and be imposed on respondent, considering
19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every lawyer to that he wrote the same out of his
represent his client with zeal within the overzealousness to protect his client's
bounds of the law? YES interests. Accordingly, the more
NB: Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall appropriate penalty is reprimand.
employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in A.C. No. 3283 July 13, 1995
presenting or threaten to present RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner,
unfounded criminal charges to obtain
vs.
ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO, same judgment, respondent is also guilty of
respondent. forum shopping. Forum shopping exists
when, by reason of an adverse decision in
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment one forum, defendant ventures to another
from the MTC which ordered respondents for a more favorable resolution of his case.
client to vacate the premises subject of the
ejectment case. respondent as counsel,
appealed the decision. CA dismissed Co's
appeal from the decision of the RTC for
failure to comply with the proper
procedures. Respondent thereafter resorted A.C. No. 528 October 11, 1967 ANGEL
to devious and underhanded means to delay
ALBANO vs.ATTY. PERPETUA COLOMA
the execution of the judgment rendered by
the MTC adverse to his client. Facts: This proceeding for disbarment
was filed by complainant Angel Albano
Held: SUSPENDED for (1) year. Rule 12.02. against respondent Perpetua Coloma,
A lawyer shall not file multiple actions a member of the Philippine Bar. In a
arising from the same cause. Rule 12.04. letter dated June 20, 1962 addressed
A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, to this Court, complainant alleged that
impede the execution of a judgment or during the Japanese occupation his
misuse court processes. mother, Delfina Aquino, and he
retained the services of respondent as
Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional counsel for them as plaintiffs in Civil
Responsibility, a lawyer is required to Case No. 4147 of the Court of First
represent his client "within the bounds of Instance of Ilocos Norte. After which
the law." The Code enjoins a lawyer to came the accusation that after
employ only fair and honest means to attain liberation and long after the courts
the lawful objectives of his client (Rule had been reorganized, respondent
19.01) and warns him not to allow his client failed to expedite the hearing and
to dictate the procedure in handling the case termination of the case, as a result of
(Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun
which they had themselves
for hire.
represented by another lawyer. This
notwithstanding, it was claimed that
It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or
respondent intervened in the case to
wrongfully use the judicial process, like the
collect her attorney's fees. It was then
filing of dilatory motions, repetitious
alleged that during the hearing they
litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole
were surprised when respondent
purpose of frustrating and delaying the
presented in exhibit a document
execution of a judgment.
showing that they as well as their co-
A judgment can be annulled only on two plaintiffs in the case promised to pay
grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for her a contingent fee of 33-/3% of
want of jurisdiction or for lack of due whatever could be recovered whether
process of law, or (b) that it has been in land or damages.
obtained by fraud. Issue: May a lawyer be removed for
her failure to comply with her
Judging from the number of actions filed by obligations as counsel as she served
respondent to forestall the execution of the faithfully, efficiently, continuously and
to the best of her knowledge and not averse to having such a risk
capacity? minimized. Where, as in this case, the
good name of counsel was traduced
Held: no, a lawyer be removed
by an accusation made in reckless
without just cause. The Solicitor
disregard of the truth, an action
General could thus rightfully assert
prompted by base ingratitude, the
that if there was anyone guilty of bad
severest censure is called for.
faith in this case "it is complainant and
his co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4147
who, after benefiting from the valuable
services of respondent in said case,
tried to renege on their agreement for
the payment of the latter's contingent
attorney's fees by dismissing her as
their counsel after she had already
won for them said case in the trial
court and the Court of Appeals, and
later, by attempting to impugn the
authenticity and genuineness of their
written agreement for the payment of
attorney's fees, . . . ." Counsel, any
counsel, who is worthy of his hire, is
entitled to be fully recompensed for
his services. With his capital consisting
solely of his brains and with his skill, Traders Royal Bank Employees
acquired at tremendous cost not only Union- Independent vs NLRC and
in money but in the expenditure of Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz
time and energy, he is entitled to the G.R.No. 120592 14March1997
protection of any judicial tribunal
against any attempt on the part of a FACTS OF THE CASE:
client to escape payment of his fees. It That TRB Employees Union, had a
is indeed ironic if after putting forth retainer agreement with Atty. Cruz, for
the best that is in him to secure justice 3,000.00 in consideration of the law
for the party he represents, he himself firms undertaking to render the
would not get his due. Such an services enumerated in their contract.
eventuality this Court is determined to During the existence of the agreement
avoid. It views with disapproval any the union referred to the private
and every effort of those benefited by respondent the claims of its members
counsel's services to deprive him of for holiday, mid-year and year-end
his hard-earned honorarium. Such an bonuses against their employer TRB.
attitude deserves condemnation. The NLRC granted the petition of the
There is this additional point to union with regard to the demand for
consider. As Cardozo aptly observed: bonuses. After, the S.C. acting upon
"Reputation [in the legal profession] is the challenge of TRBank of the NLRC
a plant of tender growth, and its decision in its decision on August 30,
bloom, once lost, is not easily 1990 modified the decision of the
restored."14 This Court, certainly is NLRC by deleting the award of mid-
year and year- end bonus differentials
while affirming the award of holiday from contracts. One of the sources of
pay differential. extra- contractual obligations found in
our civil code is the quasi contract
After TRB voluntarily complied with the premised on the roman maxim
decision, the respondent on that nemo alterius detrimento
September 18, 1990 notified the locupletari potest
union, TRB management, and the - As early as 1903 the court has
NLRC of his right to exercise and allowed the payment of reasonable
enforce his attorneys lien over the professional fees to an interpreter, not
award of holiday pay differential withstanding the lack of understanding
through a letter dated October 8, with his client as to his remuneration,
1990. on the basis a quasi-contract. It is not
necessary that the parties agree on a
ISSUES OF THE CASE: definite fee for the special services
rendered by the firm in order that the
Was the lien made by the respondent union may be obligated to pay
attorney over the award as attorneys compensation. Equity and fair play
fees valid? dictate that petitioner should pay the
same after it accepted, availed itself
- Yes, Because the contract between of, and benefited from the firms
the Union and the attorney stipulates services.
that the 3,000.00 paid as retainer fees - The measure of compensation for
is intended merely as a consideration private respondents services as
for the law firms commitment to against his client should be properly
render the services enumerated on addressed by the rule of quantum
PART A and B of the retainer meruit is used as the basis for
agreement. determining the lawyers professional
- The retainer fee paid by the Union is fees in the absence of a contract.
not a payment for the firms execution HELD:
or performance of the services listed The resolution of the NLRC with regard
in the contract, subject to the to the attorneys fees is modified, and
particular qualifications. Union is hereby ordered to pay 10,000
- Obligations do not emanate only for the firms rendered services.