FACTS:

Atty. Santos drafted Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Self-Adjudication which states that
Mariano Turla is the sole heir of Rufina Turla knowing this to be false. Mariano and
Rufina Turla had a daughter.
Years later Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter of Rufina and Mariano
Turla, filed a Complaintfor sum of money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and temporary restraining order against the complainant, Bernardino.
The Complaint alleged that Marilu Turla is an heir of Mariano Turla, which allegedly
contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests thereby violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
YES. Respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03. There is conflict of interest when a
lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test
is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue
or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client.” This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have
been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be
used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in
any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.
However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically, “by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” The respondent failed to
present evidence that he obtained the written consent of Mariano Turla and Marilu
Turla.

He also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
failing to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the Affidavit of Adjudication
despite his knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as a possible heir to the
estate of Rufina Turla. As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the
rule of law. The respondent failed to uphold his obligation as a member of the bar
to be the stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and proper.

ROBERTO BERNARDINO v. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, AC. No. 10583, 2015-02-18
Facts:
In A.C. No. 10583, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino (Bernardino) filed a Letter-
Complaint[4] against Atty. Victor Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to... disciplinary action.
[5]
Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro Turla, was
falsified by Atty. Santos.  Atty. Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when
in fact, she died in 1990
Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to support the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication[7] executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina Turla.[8]  Paragraph 6 of the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication prepared by Atty. Santos
Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter of Rufina and Mariano Turla,
[10] filed a Complaint[11] for sum of money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
temporary restraining order against Bernardino,... docketed as Civil Case No. 09-269.[12] 
The Complaint in Civil Case No. 09-269 alleged that Marilu Turla is an heir of Mariano
Turla,[13] which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos...
drafted.[14]  Hence, Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests
Also, in representing Marilu Turla, Atty.  Santos was allegedly violating the so-called "Dead
Man's Statute"[23] because "he [would] be utilizing information or matters of fact occurring
before the death of his deceased client.  Similarly, he . .
. [would] be unscrupulously utilizing information acquired during his professional relation
with his said client . . . that [would] constitute a breach of trust . . . or of privileged
communication[.]"
In addition, Atty. Santos allegedly violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01[28] of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he drafted Mariano Turla's Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. 
The Affidavit states that Mariano Turla is the sole heir of Rufina Turla,... but Atty. Santos
knew this to be false.[29]  Atty. Santos' wife, Lynn Batac, is Mariano Turla's niece.[30]  As
part of the family, Atty. Santos knew that Rufina Turla had other heirs.[31]  Atty.
Caringal further alleged:
Atty. Caringal argued that Atty. Santos was bound by the statement in Mariano Turla's
affidavit that Rufina Turla had no other heir.[33]
Moreover, Atty. Santos allegedly converted funds belonging to the heirs of Mariano Turla for
his own benefit.  The funds involved were rental income from Mariano Turla's properties
that were supposed to be distributed to the heirs.  Instead, Atty. Santos received the...
rental income.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended
that Atty. Santos be suspended for three (3) months.[47]
It found that Bernardino failed to prove his allegation that Atty. Santos knew that the death
certificate was falsified and used it to support Mariano Turla's Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.[
However, the Commission on Bar Discipline agreed with Bernardino and Atty. Caringal that
Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests.
In the Resolution[55] dated May 10, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP Board of Governors) adopted and approved the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
Issues:

1. whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility;

and (2) whether the penalty of suspension of three (3) months from the practice of
law is proper.

Ruling:
This court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the IBP Board of Governors'
Resolution.  However, this court modifies the recommended penalty of suspension from the
practice of law from three (3) months to one (1) year.
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Likewise, we accept and adopt the IBP Board of Governors' finding that respondent violated
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
In the Report, the Commission on Bar Discipline explained:
Corollary to the foregoing, the Commission by virtue of the doctrine res ipsa loquitor [sic]
finds that the respondent's act of failing to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the
Affidavit of Adjudication despite . . . his knowledge of the... existence of Marilu Turla as a
possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla, the respondent failed to uphold his obligation as
a member of the bar to be the stewards of justice and protectors of what is just, legal and
proper.  Thus in failing to do his duty and acting... dishonestly[,] not only was he in
contravention of the Lawyer's Oath but was also in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.[66]
As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In doing so, lawyers
are expected to be honest in all their dealings.[67]  Unfortunately, respondent was far from
being honest.  With full knowledge that Rufina Turla had... another heir, he acceded to
Mariano Turla's request to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
The authority to discipline members of the Bar is vested in this court under the 1987
Constitution:
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  The
findings of fact and recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines dated May 10, 2013 and March 22, 2014 are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED with
the MODIFICATION that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year
is imposed upon Atty. Victor Rey Santos.  He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar... act shall be dealt with more severely.
WILFREDO ANGLO v. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, AC. No. 10567, 2015-02-25
Facts:
Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao
Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office (law firm), of which Attys. Valencia,
Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and
Rubica were partners, for two (2) consolidated labor cases[2] where he was impleaded as
respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent complainant.
The labor cases were terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both... parties
On September 18, 2009, a criminal case[4] for qualified theft was filed against complainant
and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a
certain Michael Villacorta
(Villacorta). Villacorta, however, was represented by the law firm, the same law office which
handled complainant's labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this disbarment case
against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the
CPR,... Meanwhile, Atty. Dionela confirmed that he indeed handled complainant's labor
cases but averred that it was terminated on June 13, 2008,[9] and that complainant did not
have any monthly retainer contract.[10] He likewise explained that... he did not see the need
to discuss complainant's labor cases with the other lawyers as the issue involved was very
simple,[11] and that the latter did not confide any secret during the time the labor cases
were pending that would have been used in the... criminal case with FEVE Farms. He also
claimed that the other lawyers were not aware of the details of complainant's labor cases
nor did they know that he was the handling counsel for complainant even after  the said
cases were closed and terminated
The IBP found that complainant was indeed represented in the labor cases by the
respondents acting together as a law firm and not solely by Atty. Dionela. Consequently,
there was a conflict of interest in this case, as respondents, through Atty. Penalosa, having
been retained by
FEVE Farms, created a connection that would injure complainant in the qualified theft case.
Moreover, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.[15]
In a Resolution[16] dated February 12, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the IBP Commissioner's Report and Recommendation with modification. Instead
of the penalty of reprimand, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case... with warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Issues:
whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the
pertinent provisions of the CPR.
Ruling:
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR provide:
In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,[19] the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest in this
wise:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other... client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be... used. Also,
there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use... against
his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or...
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof
As such, a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those
of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on
totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and...
good taste
In this case, the Court concurs with the IBP's conclusions that respondents represented
conflicting interests and must therefore be held liable. As the records bear out, respondents'
law firm was engaged and, thus, represented complainant in the labor cases instituted
against... him. However, after the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a
new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of a criminal case for qualified theft against
complainant, its former client, and his wife. As the Court observes, the law firm's unethical
acceptance of the... criminal case arose from its failure to organize and implement a system
by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to its handling lawyers
to the end of, among others, ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands clear of any
potential conflict of... interest. As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged
as a collective, assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law
firm to value coordination in deference to the conflict of interest rule. This lack of
coordination, as... respondents' law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably renders its clients'
secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the lawyer-
client relationship's primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence. Had such system
been... institutionalized, all of its members, Atty. Dionela included, would have been wary of
the above-mentioned conflict, thereby impelling the firm to decline FEVE Farms'
subsequent engagement. Thus, for this shortcoming, herein respondents, as the charged
members of the law firm,... ought to be administratively sanctioned. Note that the Court
finds no sufficient reason as to why Atty. Dionela should suffer the greater penalty of
suspension. As the Court sees it, all respondents stand in equal fault for the law firm's
deficient organization for which Rule
15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR had been violated. As such, all of them are
meted with the same penalty of reprimand, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily Uy-
Valencia, Joey P. De La Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Rodney K.
Rubica, and Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa are found GUILTY of representing conflicting
interests in... violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and are therefore REPRIMANDED for said violations, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more
severely. Meanwhile, the... case against Atty. Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view of his
death.

A.C. No. 6281 September 26, 2011VALENTIN C. MIRANDAvs.ATTY. MACARIO D.

CARPIOPonente: PERALTA, J.Violation: Canon 1 rule 1.01, Canon 16 rule 16.03, and Canon 20Penalty:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months

FACTS:

Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay
Lupang Uno, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. Complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC) Case
for the registration of the property. During the course of the proceedings, complainant engaged
the services of respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his original counsel, Atty.
Samuel Marquez, figured in a vehicular accident. In complainant's Affidavit, complainant and
respondent agreed that complainant was to pay P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and P2,000.00 as
appearance fee. Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him, as evidenced by receipts
duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the
additional P10,000.00 for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further
strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus 20% of the total area of the subject property
as additional fees for his services Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was
contrary to their agreement. Moreover, complainant co-owned the subject property with his siblings,
and he could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by respondent without the
knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy
respondent's demands, the latter became furious and their relationship became sore. A Decision was
rendered, granting the petition for registration, which Decision was declared final and executory. The
Land Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of the letter addressed to the Register
of Deeds (RD) of Las Piñas City, which transmitted the decree of registration and the original and
owner's duplicate of the title of the property. Complainant went to the RD to get the owner's duplicate
of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT).He was surprised to discover that the same had already
been claimed by and released to respondent on. Complainant talked to respondent on the phone
and asked him to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which he had claimed without
complainant's knowledge, consent and authority. Respondent insisted that complainant first pay him
the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the property in exchange for which, respondent would deliver
the owner’s duplicate of the OCT. Once again, complainant refused the demand, for not having been
agreed upon. The Complaint in seeking the disbarment or the imposition of the appropriate
penalty upon respondent, complainant invokes the following provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility: Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Canon 16. A lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Canon 16.03. A
lawyer shall deliver the funds and properties of his client when due or upon demand. The Defense In
defense of his actions, respondent relied on his alleged retaining lien over the owner's duplicate
of OCT No. 0-94. Respondent admitted that he did not turn over to complainant the owner's duplicate
of OCT No. 0-94 because of complainant's refusal, notwithstanding repeated demands, to
complete payment of his agreed professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the
property covered by the title. Respondent admitted the receipt of the amount of PhP32,000.00,
however, he alleged that the amount earlier paid to him will be deducted from the 20% of the current
value of the subject lot. He alleged that the agreement was not reduced into writing, because the
parties believed each other based on their mutual trust. He denied that he demanded the
payment of PhP10,000.00 for the preparation of a memorandum, since he considered the same
unnecessary. In addition to the alleged agreement between him and complainant for the payment of the
20% professional fees, respondent invoked the principle of "quantum meruit" to justify the
amount being demanded by him. The Case In its Report and Recommendation4 dated June 9,
2005, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
for unjustly withholding from complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 in the exercise of
his so-called attorney's lien. In Resolution No. XVII-2005-173,5 dated December 17, 2005, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

Issue/s:

Whether or not can be administratively held liable for his actions

Held:

Yes. Respondent's claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally give him the right to retain
the property of his client until he receives what is allegedly due him has been paid has no

basis and, thus, is invalid. 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. 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. At
the outset, respondent should have informed the complainant of all the fees or possible fees
that he would charge before handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of the case.
This is essential in order for the complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay
respondent before engaging his services.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.
"Quantum meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for determining the lawyer's
professional fees in the absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his client." The
principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his
services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services, as much
as he has earned.[13] 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.Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property belonging to his client and
imposing unwarranted fees in exchange for the release of said title deserve the imposition of
disciplinary sanction.Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of six (6) months,effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is ordered to RETURN to the
complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 immediately upon receipt of this decision. He
is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

FACTS:        Milagros Aldovino et. al.  are brothers and sisters. They hired the
services of respondent Atty. Pujalte, Jr. as their counsel in a suit for specific
performance to compel their sister, Loreto Nicodemus Pulumbarit, to deliver to
them their shares in the estate of their deceased mother.

The trial court issued an order directing both contending counsels to oversee the
distribution of the shares to the heirs to the savings account of the decedent.

The Branch Clerk of Court gave to Atty. Pujalte the amount of P1,001,332.26,
corresponding to the shares of Milagros Aldovino et. al. upon his representation
that he is authorized to receive the money.

However, Milagros Aldovino et. al. did not receive their shares from Atty. Pujalte
despite repeated demands. Thus, they engaged the services of Atty. Francisco I.
Chavez who sent a letter to Atty. Pujalte demanding that the amount entrusted to
him.

Atty. Pujalte wired Atty. Chavez that he will deliver to Milagros Aldovino et. al.
their respective shares “tomorrow morning.” However, what he delivered to
herein Milagros Aldovino et. al.  was only P751,332.26, instead of P1,001,332.26
because he deducted P250,000.00 therefrom. He claimed that this amount is his
attorney’s fees per his agreement with Milagros Aldovino.

ISSUE:
What is the liability and duty of Atty. Pujalte as lawyer of Milagros Aldovino et.
al.?

RULING: Atty. Pujalte violated Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 16 and its Rule 16.03 provide:

“CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES

OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
“x x x x x x x x x
“Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Court.”
Atty. Pujalte has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyer’s lien,  the
sum of P250,000.00. There was no agreement between him and Milagros
Aldovino et. al.  that he could retain P250,000.00 as attorney’s fees. In fact, he
did not adduce any proof of such agreement. His mere allegation or claim is not
proof. Obviously, his failure to return the money to Milagros Aldovino et. al.
upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in
violation of the trust reposed on him. (Barnachea vs. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925,
March 11, 2003)

————————————————-

THINGS DECIDED:
A)      A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same
extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided
for in the Rules of Court.