FRANCISCO V PORTUGAL

FACTS:

SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando

M. Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in
the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another.
As a result, Informations were filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder eventually they
were convicted. Complainants engaged the services of herein
respondent for the accused.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but it was denied still the respondent filed an
Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration,
with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with
this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again
despite the frequent telephone calls they made to his office.
When respondent did not return their phone inquiries,
complainants went to respondents last known address only to find
out that he had moved out without any forwarding address.
More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were
constrained to personally verify the status of the petition and they
were shocked that their petition was denied due to late filing and
non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained
finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued against
them.
Complainants filed before the SC an affidavit-complaint against
Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal(respondent) for violation of the
Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence for alleged
mishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with
finality.
Respondent contends that he was not the original counsel of the
accused.
He only met the accused during the promulgation of the
Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of
homicide and one count of attempted homicide.
He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand,
assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of the
Sandiganbayan decision and the petition was filed within the
reglementary period.
Respondent sent a letter the PO3 Joaquin for his formal withdrawal
as counsel but the latter did not reply.
Upon the investigation of the IBP, it ruled respondent guilty of
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand to
suspension of six (6) months.

ISSUE: Whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in

handling G.R. No. 152621-23,which eventually led to the ad cautelam
petitions dismissal with finality
HELD:YES,

SC ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the

practice of law for three (3)months
. The SC agreed to the IBP that the dismissal of thead cautelam
petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of respondent
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and
champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion.
In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the
accused, respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in
defending the accused for it is not only the property of the
accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their right
to their life and liberty.
Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules,
ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those,
the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate, exacting
and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity
and good faith that is required by reason of necessity and public
interest.
In this case, respondent ought to know that he was the one who
should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the accused.
His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave
the minstructions on how to go about respondents withdrawal
from the case defies credulity.
It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate
measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation.
He should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was
truly the case.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to
terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without
cause.
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its conclusion.
He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause.
A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the clients written consent or from a
good cause

Furthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a

lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client
never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship.
Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of
public service, not money, is the primary consideration

IN THE MATTER OF ATTY. LOPE ADRIANO vs. REMEGIO ESTABIA

Facts:

Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First

Instance of Samar and was sentenced to suffer the capital
punishment.
On December, Lope Adriano was appointed as Estebias counsel
de oficio when his case came up before the Supreme Court on
review.
Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within 30 days
from notice. Adriano sought a 30-day extension to file appellants
brief in mimeograph form. After obtaining 4 extensions, he, then,
sought a special extension of five days.
All of these motions for extension were granted by the Court and
the brief was nearly due.
However, no brief was filed.
For failing to comply, the Supreme Court resolved to impose upon
Adriano a fine of P500 with a warning that a more drastic
disciplinary action will be taken against him upon further noncompliance.
Adriano was ordered to show cause why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and
violation of his oath of office as attorney.
A resolution was personally served upon him on December 18,
1968 however Adriano ignored the said resolution.

Issue: Whether or not the conduct of Atty Lope E. Adriano as member of

the bar deserve disciplinary action.

NESTOR PEREZ vs ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE

FACTS:

Held:Yes.

By specific authority, this Court may assign an attorney to render

professional aid to a destitute appellant in a criminal case who is
unable to employ an attorney.
Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the lawyer so assigned
"to render the required service.
" A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an indigent prisoner", our
Canons of Professional Ethics demand, "should always exert his
best efforts" in the indigent's behalf.

No excuse at all has been offered for non-presentation of

appellant's brief.
And yet when he received notice of his appointment, and when the
last show cause order was issued by this Court, more than
sufficient time was afforded counsel to prepare and file his brief de
oficio.
In the face of the fact that no brief has ever been filed, counsel's
statements in his motions for extension have gone down to the
level of empty and meaningless words; at best, have dubious
claim to veracity.
Adrianos pattern of conduct reveals a propensity to be numb
appreciation of his obligation as counsel de oficio and of the
courtesy and respect that should be accorded this Court.
For the reasons given Attorney Lope E. Adriano was suspended
from the practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of
one year.

Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur,

that in Dec 2001, several suspects for murder and kidnapping for
ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila were
apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent
went to the Municipal bldg. of Calabanga where the accused were
being detained and made representations that he could secure
their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions;
that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing
the heirs of the murder victim;
The extrajudicial confessions included herein the complainant as
the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being
charged
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in
executing his extrajudicial confession, he conferred with Ilo in the
presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo
was not under compulsion did he assist the accused in executing
the extrajudicial confession.

ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR

HELD: YES

Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is

suspended for three years from the practice of law.
The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer were
retained by both Avila and Ilo.

Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De la Torre was
representing the said two accused, he was also representing the
interest of the victims family.
Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing
two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded
on principles of public policy and good taste.
In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the
facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and
strong points of the case.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites
suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.
What is unsetting is that respondent assisted in the execution by
the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their
participation in various serious criminal offenses knowing fully well
that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.
Respondent, who presumably knows the intricacies of the law,
should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to
accuseds choice of counsel
WHEREFORE, Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
representing conflicting interests. He is SUSPENDED for THREE
YEARS from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.

Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty.

Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case.
After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during
which Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present,
Canoy decided to follow-up the case himself with the NLRC.
He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed
way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having
submitted their position papers. The dismissal was without
prejudice.
Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz had never communicated to him
about the status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to
submit the position paper.
In the comment filed by Atty. Ortiz, he contends that since he
entered the legal profession in 1987, he was providing his services
mostly to indigent clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to
himself.
Canoy was among those low-income clients whom Atty. Ortiz
deigned to represent.
Atty. Ortiz admits though that the period within which to file the
position paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to
timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as
Councilor of Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both
his functions as a local government official and as a practicing
lawyer."
Eventually, "his desire to help was beyond physical limitations,"
and he withdrew from his other cases and his "free legal services."
Atty. Ortiz further contends that the complainant was free to call or
visit his office and that it was his policy to inform clients that they
should be the ones to follow-up their cases with his office, as it
would be "too difficult and a financial burden to attend making
follow-ups with hundreds of clients, mostly indigents" with only
two office personnel.

CANOY V ORTIZ

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ortizs contentions justify his failure to submit a
position paper for the complainant.

Facts:

Held: NO.

Complainant Elmer Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

against his former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines.
The complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City.
Respondent Atty. Jose Max Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in
this proceeding. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the complaint
ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers.
Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty.
Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper.

Respondent attorney violated, inter alia, Canon 17 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which provides:

CANON 17- A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS

CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing
litigants who could ill afford legal services deserve commendation.

However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer,
no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent
acts.
It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured
of legal representation.
They deserve quality representation as well.
If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition was
such that he would not be able to make a timely filing, he should
have informed Canoy of such fact.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is
ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully
informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in
the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are
being defended.
Also, he cannot now shift the blame to complainant for failing to
inquire about the status of the case, since, as stated above, it was
his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases
entrusted to him.
the severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until
a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly
indicating that purpose is filed with the court or tribunal, and a
copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the
lawyer continues to be counsel in the case.
Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services,
he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected.
Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter.
Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further action on
the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the
services of another counsel.
Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination
between Atty. Ortiz and this new counsel.
There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually
abandoning the cause of the client in the midst of litigation
without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion.
That the lawyer forsook his legal practice on account of what
might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office,
does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.
Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no
reason to deviate from the norm in this case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month from
notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence
will be dealt with more severely

Elsie Aromin vs. Valentin Boncavil

A. C. No. 5135. Sept. 22, 1999. PONENTE: Mendoza
FACTS:

Ballesteros engaged services of respondent Atty. Boncavil in two

cadastral cases.
Upon receipt of the adverse decision in the 2 cases, Boncavil did
not inform the claimants of the decision, did not file a motion for
reconsideration or a notice of appeal, did not file a written offer of
evidence despite the directive of the trial court and only filed a
motion to substitute 4 years after the complainants father died.

ISSUE: WON BONCAVIL SHOULD BE PUNISHED ADMINISTRATIVELY

HELD: YES

Atty. Boncavil was suspended for 6 months from notice with a

warning that repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
Boncavil violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility providing that A lawyer should serve his client with
competence and diligence and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that a lawyer must not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to suspend respondent Atty.
Valentin O. Boncavil from the practice of law for six (6) months
from notice with a warning that a repetition of a similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.

JARDIN V. VILLAR
FACTS

Complainant is plaintiff in a civil case in MTC. A building

contractor, he engaged the services of respondent to represent
him in the case which is a collection for the sum of 105, 744.80.
The case went its usual course, but despite several extensions
given by the trial court, respondent failed to file his formal offer of
exhibits.

ISSUE: WN respondent is liable for negligence

HELD:

The failure to file formal offer of evidence is in pari materia with

failure to file brief, which as this court held in Perla Compania v.
Saquilabon, constitutes inexcusable negligence.
Respondent has been languid in the performance of his duties as
counsel for the complainant.
He has not met the extensions of time set by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Deogracias
Villar is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective upon finality hereof, with the WARNING that the
repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more
severely

To effectively unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look

into the cases involved.
Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting
interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality was committed
by respondent.

Issues:
1. Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and
handled by respondent, and

JALANDONI V VILLAROSA

2. Whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of record

of Jalandoni.

Facts:

Held:

In this case, respondent ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA is a

practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Lumot A. Jalandoni who is the Chairman/President of
Penta Resorts Corporation (PRC) and owns the biggest shares of
stocks in the corporation, was sued which involved the possession
of land where Alhambra hotel, the only property owned by PRC, is
situated.
This is Civil Case No. 97-9865.The latter engaged the legal
services of herein respondent. Respondent as a consequence of
said Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et
al in the entire proceedings of said case.
Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel, hence
delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal
circumstances of his client were entrusted to the respondent.
Later on, respondent, without due notice prior to a scheduled
hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one
day before its scheduled hearing.
A careful perusal of said Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will
conclusively show that no copy thereof was furnished to Lumot A.
Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity
The grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel
of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is a retained counsel of
Dennis G. Jalbuena.
This is an estafa case filed by the representatives of PRCitself
against spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena
It is worthy to note that from the outset, respondent already knew
that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A. Jalandoni
being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena.
Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting
interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate
withholding of records were committed by respondent.

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)

highlights the need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the
dealings of lawyers with their clients.
Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly provides: Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full
disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client;
otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is
reprehensible.
Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner: There is
representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to do anything 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.
The rule on conflict of interests 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.
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, and also whether he will be called upon in
his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquire in the previous employment.
The first part of the rule refers to cas es in which the opposing
parties are present clients either in the same action or in a totally
unrelated case; the second part pertains to those in which
theadverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former

client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the

present controversy.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former clientin any manner, whether or
not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated
cases.
The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties
connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A.Jalandoni was
specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases
mentioned.
An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance.
After being retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he
cannot, without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act
both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or
conflicting with that of his client in the same general matter
The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight;
neither is it material that the intention and motive of the attorney
may have been honest.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the
absence of the written consent of all partiesconcerned after a full
disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct which
subjects thelawyer to disciplinary action
.Even respondents alleged effort to settle the existing
controversy among the family members wasimproper because the
written consent of all concerned was still required. A lawyer who
acts as such insettling a dispute cannot represent any of the
parties to it.
The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondents
withdrawal as counsel for Lumot A.Jalandoni.
In his comment, respondent stated that it was he who was not
notified of the hiring of Atty.Alminaza as the new counsel in that
case and that he withdrew from the case with the knowledge of
Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of court.
The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be
summarized as follows: The relation of attorney and client may be
terminated by the client, by the lawyer or by the court, or by
reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the
lawyer.
The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain
duties on the part of the client and his lawyer
Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause
is considerably restricted. Canon 22 of the CPR reads: Canon 22
A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.
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 attorney should see to it that the name
of the new lawyer is recorded in the case.
A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written
consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He
must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse
party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise
the court maytreat the application as a "mere scrap of paper."
Respondent made no such move. He admitted that he withdrew as
counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly
approved by the court on April28, 1999.
The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty.
Villarosa because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court,
supposedly in his place.
A client may discharge his attorney at any time with or without
cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter
his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client is free to
change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another
lawyer to represent him.
That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of
the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the
court.
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to
substitute for respondent but to act as additional counsel.
Mrs. Jalandonis conformity to having an additional lawyer did not
necessarily mean conformityto respondents desire to withdraw as
counsel.
Respondents speculations on the professional relationship of Atty.
Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this
case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa is hereby found GUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon
22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of
this decision, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely

HORNILLA V SALUNAT
Facts:

Hornilla filed a complaint against Atty. Salunat with the IBP

Commission on Bar Discipline for unethical practice regarding
conflict of interests.
Said counsel is a member of the ASSA Law Office and acted as the
lawyer for the Philippine Public School Teachers Association.
In a squabble between the PPSTA and some of its board members
pending SEC resolution for unlawful spending and undervalued

sale of real properties, Atty. Salunat appeared as counsel for said

board members.
Respondent says he only appeared in behalf of ASSA since he was
a partner.
Moreover, he only filed a Manifestation for extreme urgency.

Issue: Whether or not there is conflict of interest

Held: Yes.

Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing

conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher
degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is further
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.
The suit filed by Hornilla et al against the Board of PPSTA is a
derivative suit. Where corporate directors have committed a
breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or
negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute
suit to remedy the wrong, a stockholder (in this case a member
because PPSTA is non-stock) may sue on behalf of himself and
other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring
about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and
indirectly to the stockholders.
In such a case, even though it was the members who filed the
case and not the corporation itself, the real party in interest is still
the corporation (PPSTA) and the suing members (Hornilla et al) are
only the nominal party.
Therefore, since it is the corporation suing, Salunat cannot
represent the Board Members of PPSTA because he is a member of
ASSA Law Office which is the retained law firm of PPSTA.
Surely, there is conflict of interest in him representing the Board
while his law office represents the corporation.
Salunat was admonished by the Supreme Court.
RULE 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
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 lawyers
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.
Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either
by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation
is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a
stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders
and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring about a redress of
the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the
stockholders.
This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the
doctrine that in a derivative suit, the corporation is the real party
in interest while the stockholder filing suit for the corporations
behalf is only nominal party.
The corporation should be included as a party in the suit.
In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-975657, entitled Philippine Public School Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v.
1992-1995 Board of Directors of the Philippine Public

LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA

AUSTRIA MARTINEZ, JAN 23, 2006
FACTS:

Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they
harassed Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales thereafter
filedagainst the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion and unjust
vexation;
where respondent s law firm was still representing Gonzales,
herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases filed by
Gonzales against the said sps.,
respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law since
respondents acceptance of the cases of the Gatchecos violates
the lawyer client relationship between complainant and
respondents law firm and renders respondent liable under CPR
particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, 15.03, 21.02 and 21.02.

Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of

such case since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who
appeared and represented Gonzales in said case.
He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife
in the cases filed against them bur claimed that his appearance is
pro bono and that the sps pleaded with him as no other counsel
was willing to take their case.

ISSUE: WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR

FACTS:

HELD: YES

Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR.

It is well-settled that lawyer is barred from representing conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts.
Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients
confidence but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present
clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.
Respondents allegation that it was his brother who represented
Gonzales, thus there could be no conflict of interest is no merit.
As respondent admitted, it was their law firm which represented
Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against
representing conflicting interest applies.
The court consider however as mitigating circumstances the fact
that he is representing the Gatcheco sps pro bono and that it was
his firm and not respondent personally which handled the civil
case of Gonzales.
And it was observed that there was no malice and bad faith in
respondents acceptance of the Gatchecos cases as shown by
the move of complainant to withdraw the case.
Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR and taking
consideration of mitigating circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined
the amount of P 2,000 with stern warning that a commission of the
same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely

ROLLON V NARAVAL
A.C. No. 6424. March 4, 2005, PANGANIBAN J

ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY

NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed against her
(Collection of Sum of Money)
After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be
ROLLONS lawyer and required her to payP8,000 as filing and
partial service fee
As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his
office to follow up however ATTY NARAVAL told the SON that he
was not able to act on the case because he was busy
After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to
withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL for failure of the latter
to comply with their mutual agreement
ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents
because the same were in his house and the P8,000paid by
ROLLON because he has no money
ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao
City INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for
neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15and 18
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for
violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8,000

ISSUE: W/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED

HELD: YES,

FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15.05 ANDCANONS 16, 17 & 18

Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as
advocates of any person who may wish to become their client.
They may decline employment and refuse to accept
representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out
effectively and competently.
But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by
the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task
with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney clientrelationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to a clients
cause. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full
attention, diligence, skill and competence.
Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they
can efficiently handle.
Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced.
In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY
NARAVAL failed to render any legal service to ROLLON and despite
ROLLONS repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the
files of the case that had been entrusted to him and kept the
money ROLLON had likewise entrusted to him

Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL

should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on the merits and
status of the case.
Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided
against her and had long become final executory.
However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from
ROLLON and even demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee
giving her hope that her case would be acted upon.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Camilo Naraval is foundGUILTYof violating Rule
15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility and is herebySUSPENDEDfrom the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon
hisreceipt of this Decision.Furthermore, he isORDERED TO
RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of thisDecision,
complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest
thereon, at the rate of six percent perannum, from October 18,
2000, until fully paid

REDDI VS. SEBRIO

ISSUE: Whether or not on his acts he violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility that would warrant his disbarment
HELD:

PER CURIAM

FACTS:

Complainant was an American citizen of Indian descent and a

practicing endodontist in New York.
Influenced by her parents who were both engaged in charitable
activities she decided to open hospital with modern facilities in an
underdeveloped part of Asia.
On the year 2000, with her assistant for 10 years Immaculada
Luistro(Immaculada), a Filipino citizen, they visited Philippines.
She saw the needs of the poor people for medical services so she
planned to open a hospital for them.
Immaculada suggested her to engage into a real estate business
tospeed up the generation of funds. In response to the suggestion,
she returne dto Philippines on 2003 to start the business.
She was introduced to Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr., and advised
that since she could not owned a property she had to use
corporate vehicles to effect the purchases.
Three corporations were thus formed Tagaytay Twins,Inc., Manila
Chic Twins, Inc., and Tanu, Inc.Respondent enticed her into buying
several parcels of land located at Tagaytay City, Las Pias City,
Makati City, Quezon City, and Pasay City whichall transactions did
not come about. T
he amount of US$3,000,000 which wascalculated as the total
expenses was demanded to return from therespondent.
Despite demands no single centavo was returned; hence
complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent.

On his answer he admitted to receive only the amount of

US$544,828and handled different transactions relating to
complainants business.
The case was referred to IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation/decision by Resolution of January 22, 2007
On the mandatory conference scheduled, respondent was absent
andonly sent a representative for resetting, the Commission did
not buy his reasons, instead considered respondent to have
waived his right to participate in the proceedings. Complainant
thereupon presented evidence ex-parte and submitted her
position paper.

On his answer or comment on the complaint against him as well as

based on the investigation of the Commission it was clearly shown
that respondent committed grave violation to the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The commission enumerated the following that had been infringed
by respondent:

1. CANON 1 which states: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for the law and for legal processes.
2. Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3.CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
4. Rule 15.06 of the CPR which provides: A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

In addition thereto, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

provides: A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so. x x x.

By his own admission, respondent received a total of

US$544,828from complainant, which he could not properly
account for.
The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent
scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking
advantage of complainants naivet in the workings of the real
estate business in the Philippines, depict a man whose character
falls way, way short of the exacting standards required of him as a
member of the bar and anofficer of the court.
Thus, respondent is no longer fit to remain as such.
The power to disbar must always be exercised with great
caution ,and only for the most imperative reasons and in clear
cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of
the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.
If the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks
should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.
The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much
greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
The respondent failed to maintain the good moral character that
must be kept all throughout his life in the practice of law.
he respondents acts constitute dishonest and deceitful conduct
with respect to the intended transactions, real property
acquisitions which turned out to be bogus.
His defenses raised in his Comment consist mainly in bare denials.
When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not
enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the
issue and overcome the evidence against him.
He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality
and integrity which at all times is expected of him.
This, respondent miserably failed to do.
If the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks
should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them
WHEREFORE, respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is DISBARREDand
his name isORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is
ORDERED TO RETURN tocomplainant the amount of US$544,828.

Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against

respondent.
RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, NazarenoRelampagos group, through force and intimidation, forcibly took
over the management and the premises of RBCI.
They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager,
destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the
bank.
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 retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against
RBCIs counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any
evidence to prove their allegations.
Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint
were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and
that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified
true copies.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon
15.07.
HELD: YES

RBCI v FLORIDO

A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

The Court held that respondent was 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, 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 from activities aimed at
defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.
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 clients to use peaceful and lawful
methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional
wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of
justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate.
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 clients cause,
is condemnable and unethical

For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to

impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of
fairness.
A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client.[8] 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
WHEREFORE, court finds respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido
GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of the
Decision

ISSUE: WoN Marino should be reprimanded

HELD: YES

GAMILLA v MARIO
BELLOSILLO, J

FACTS:

Atty Marino, Jr. as president of the UST Faculty Union and other
union officers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
the management of UST for the provision of economic benefits
amounting toP35 Milllion.
The 1986 collective bargaining agreement expired in 1988 but
efforts to forge a new one unfortunately failed.
In 1989, the faculty members of UST went on strike and as a
counter-measure UST terminated the employment of 16 officers
and directors of the UST Faculty Union including Atty Marino, Jr.
The Sec of Labor prescribed the retroactivity of the collective
bargaining agreement to 1988 when the 1986 collective
bargaining agreement expired.
In the same year, the administration of UST and the UST Faculty
Union also entered into a compromise agreement for the payment
to settle backwages.
The important fact in this case is that Atty, Marino, as president,
negotiated with UST as union attorney, even though he was an
interested party since he was one of the officers who were
dismissed (conflict of interests)

Atty Marino failed to avoid conflict of interests, first, when he

negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he played the
diverse roles of union president, union atty and interested party
being one of the dismissed employees seeking his own restitution,
and thereafter, when he obtained the attys fees of P4,200,000.00
without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such
claim to the members of the UST Faculty Union.
2. As one of the 16 union officers and directors seeking
compensation from the UST for their illegal dismissal, Atty. Marino
was involved in obvious conflict of interests when in addition he
chose to act as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST Faculty
Union in forging the compromise agreement.
The test of conflict of interest among lawyers iswhether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an atty 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.
In the same manner, it is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an
atty to pu himself in a position where self-interest tempts, or
worse, actually impels him to do less than his best for his client.
Atty Marino. Both as lawyer and president of the union was duty
bound to protect and advance the interest of the union members
and the bargaining unit above his own.
This obligation was jeopardized when his personal interest
complicated the negotiation process and eventually resulted in the
lopsided compromise agreement that rightly or wrongly brought
money to him at the expense of the other faculty members. He
also ought to have disclosed his interest
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mario Jr. is
REPRIMANDED for his misconduct with a warning that a more
drastic punishment will be imposed on him upon a repetition of the
same act.