ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD A.C. No.

8158

DOCTRINE

The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts
to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client.

FACTS:

Atty. Macalalad, Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban City, was introduced to Atty. Solidon. Atty. Solidon asked Atty.
Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land. For a consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos ,
Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a period of eight (8) months. Atty. Macalalad
received Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the certificate of title to the property.

There was delay in filing the petition and Atty. Macalalad posited that it was caused by his clients’ failure
to communicate with him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of negligence in handling his case.

HELD:

A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with
utmost diligence. The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to
exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client.

Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by
giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer. The records in
this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed when he failed to file the required
petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate
with them. We consider, too, that other motivating factors – specifically, the monetary consideration
and the fixed period of performance – should have made it more imperative for Atty. Macalalad to
promptly take action and initiate communication with his clients.

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA A.C. No. 7907

DOCTRINE: While it is true that communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his
clients, it is the counsel’s primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders
which have been issued by the court.

FACTS: In the Complaint of the spouses Aranda, they alleged that Atty. Elayda’s handling of their civil
case was “sorely inadequate, as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure and
evidence. However, they were surprised that an adverse judgment was rendered against them resulting
to the loss of their Mitsubishi Pajero. Apparently, Atty. Elayda failed to inform the spouses of the date of
hearing as well as the order of judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by
the lawyer as well. In his reply, Atty. Elayda said that the spouses did not bother to keep in touch with
him and they were the ones who neglected their case in court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be sanctioned by the court.

HELD: While it is true that communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his clients, it
is the counsel’s primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders which have
been issued by the court. Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and safeguard the interests of his clients.
He should be conscientious, competent and diligent in handling his clients’ cases. Atty. Elayda should
give adequate attention, care, and time to all the cases he is handling.

Evidently, Atty. Elayda was remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession.
His conduct shows that he not only failed to exercise due diligence in handling his clients’ case but in
fact abandoned his clients’ cause.

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES vs. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ A.C. No. 6691

DOCTRINE

While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their
client’s right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to
exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

FACTS: Complainant Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson. Respondent
Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. Atty. Jimenez filed with the
RTC a notice of appeal questioning the payment of commission to Atty. Briones. Atty. Jimenez filed with
the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, appointing the firm of
Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at the expense of the late Luz J. Henson. Atty. Briones.

Consequently, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against
Atty Briones for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Jimenez is guilty of (1) forum shopping and (2) violation of Canons 19 and 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

1. No. It is evident that there is identity of parties but different causes of action and reliefs sought.

Records show that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special civil
action docketed as CA-G.R.SP No. 70349 assailing the Order of March 12, 2002 appointing the
accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co.as auditor; and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
71488 assailing the Order of April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of commission to
complainant.
2. Yes. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said
criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. While lawyers
owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client’s right,
they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Respondent should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said
Order instead of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him. A mere perusal of
the rest of the Order dated April 3, 2002 readily discloses that the approval of the report of complainant
as Special Administrator was suspended prior to the audit of the administration of complainant.
Consequently, the RTC would still have to determine and define the residue referred to in the subject
Order. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently premature.

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO A.C. No. 5736 June
18, 2010

DOCTRINE: A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.

FACTS: According to RBCI, respondent and his clients (Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force and
intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI.
They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and
installed their own staff to run the bank.

IBP, through its Commissioner, said that respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover of
RBCI and that it was a “naked power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever.” Respondent
appealed from the IBP’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florido violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client.
It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from
doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

MIRANDA vs. CARPIO

DOCTRINE: It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which
were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services.

Valentin Miranda initiated a case for the registration of a parcel of land. Atty. Carpio was hired as when
original counsel, Atty. Samuel Marquez, figured in a vehicular accident. In complainant's Affidavit,[2]
complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was to pay respondent Twenty Thousand Pesos
(PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. During the
last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further strengthen
complainant's position in the case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the subject property as
additional fees for his services.

A Decision was rendered which transmitted the decree of registration and the original and owner's
duplicate of the title of the property which had already been claimed by and released to respondent
who insisted that complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the property
equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for which, respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate
of the OCT.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carpio has violated Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which
were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services. In collecting from
complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which mandates that “a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.”

Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on
the basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no merit. In the present case, the parties had already
entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent, and thus, the principle of
quantum meruit does not fully find application because the respondent is already compensated by such
agreement.

TERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE

DOCTRINE: An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by
permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the lawyer should see to it that the
name of the new counsel is recorded in the case.

FACTS: Complainant averred that she was the defendant in an action for ejectment in which a judgment
was rendered against her. Complainant terminated the services of her then counsel and engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance as her counsel de parte in both cases. Respondent, as her
counsel, filed a “Motion to Reconsider and/or Set Aside Order. The motion was denied by the trial court.
Subsequently, respondent made representations with complainant that she was going to file a petition
for certiorari and as a consequence respondent charged complainant P3,900.00, which the latter paid.
Apparently, no petition was filed.Complainant further averred that respondent told her to go to the
court to claim the check for the supersede as bond and have the same encashed with the Landbank.
However, upon verification with the MTC, she discovered that there was no such check and that she
needs to present the official receipt to withdraw said deposit. She tried to recover the official receipt
from respondent but the latter kept avoiding her.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Avance violated the CPR.

Aggravating her gross negligence in the performance of her duties, respondent abruptly stopped
appearing as complainant’s counsel even as proceedings were still pending – with neither a withdrawal
nor an explanation for doing so. The grounds wherein a lawyer may withdraw his services are well-
defined, and the abruptness of respondent’s withdrawal hardly fits into any of them. An attorney may
only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due
notice and hearing, in which event the lawyer should see to it that the name of the new counsel is
recorded in the case.

BUN SIONG YAO vs. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO

DOCTRINE

The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in
his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents.

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that since 1987 he retained the services of respondent as his personal lawyer;
respondent is a stockholder and the retained counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar
Textile Finishing Corporation of which complainant is a majority stockholder; that complainant
purchased several parcels of land using his personal funds but were registered in the name of the
corporations upon the advice of respondent; that respondent, who was also the brother in-law of
complainant’s wife, had in 1999 a disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent demanded
the return of his investment in the corporations but when complainant refused to pay, he filed a series
of suits.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has violated the CPR.

HELD: Yes. The long-established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications
made to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to
preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their relationship. The
protection given to the client is perpetual. It even survives the death of the client.

Respondent’s act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in different venues constitutes forum-
shopping. Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. In
doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and
complainant’s companies for his own end.
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, vs. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P.
PORTUGAL

DOCTRINE: A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon a case without reasonable cause.

FACTS: Informations were filed against complainant before the Sandiganbayan for murder and
frustrated murder. Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused. There
were series of petition. Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the
frequent telephone calls they made to his office. They were shocked to discover that the Court had
already issued a Resolution denying a petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.
Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had
already been issued against the accused because respondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown,
did nothing to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

ISSUE: Whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling the criminal case,
which eventually led to the ad cautelam petition’s dismissal with finality.

HELD: Yes. Respondent’s conduct in dealing with the accused and complainants, he definitely fell short
of the high standard of assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard the rights of his clients.
A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a
case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause. Had
respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is
presumably steeped in court procedures and practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal
himself instead of the accused.

FLORENCE TEVES MACARUBBO vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO RE: PETITION (FOR
EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO

FACTS: For resolution is the Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) filed by respondent Edmundo L.
Macarubbo (respondent) who seeks to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys. The Court disbarred
respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage .

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal for Compassion and Mercy which the Court
denied with finality. Eight years after, respondent filed the instant Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy)
seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. The Court initially treated the
present suit as a second motion for reconsideration and accordingly, denied it for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.Macarubbo be granted with judicial clemency to reinstate his name in the
roll of attorneys.

HELD:Yes. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, the Court laid down the following guidelines in
resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to
certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and
probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will
give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation. 2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. 3. The age of the person asking for clemency
must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself. 4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning
or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service. 5. There must be other
relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character.

Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds the instant petition meritorious.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession
and in his personal life. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered reinstated to the practice of law. He
is, however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence to the rigid
standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are continuing
requirements.