FUDOT V.

CATTLEYA LAND

FERNANDEZ V. DE RAMOS-VILLALON
FACTS

FACTS
This is an administrative case filed by petitioner Fernandez against Atty. Villalon.
It started from a case filed by a certain Carlos Palacios against Fernandez to nullify a
Deed of Donation. Atty. Villalon represented Palacios in the early part of the case against
Fernandez.
In 2004, Palacios, owner of a lot in Makati, sought the help of Fernandez to help
him in a case against a land-grabbing syndicate. Palacios won the case with the help of
Fernandez.
In Sept 2005, Palacios bumped into a Mrs. Lirio who expressed interest in
buying Palacios Makati property. It turns out that it was being sold by Fernandez who
allegedly had a Deed of Donation which Palacios executed in his favor. This Deed of
Donation was registered.
Palacios, with the help of Atty. Villalon, filed an action tto nullify the Deed against
Fernandez. However, Fernandez answered that the title transfer in his name was proper,
citing a Deed of Absolute Sale as basis. He furthered alled that it was actually Palacios
who forged the Deed of Donation to cheat in taxes.
In 2006, Fernandez filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Villalon for
violation of Rule 1.01, 7.03, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3. He claims that Atty. Villalon has suppressed
and excluded in the complaint filed by her knowledge about the existence of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, which was by the way, unregistered. He says that no mention of it was
made in the petition for the annulment of thee Deed of Donation.
Commissioner of IBP recommended the dismissal of the case. Sustaining Atty.
Villalons argument that she, as counsel for Palacios, was under no duty to include the
fact that the Deed of Sale existed because only the clients operative facts, and not other
evidentiary facts, need to be included in the complaint. The Deed of Sale was a matter of
a defense that Fernandez as defendant can freely point out during the trial.
Fernandez appealed the case.
ISSUE
W/N there was grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint.
HELD
None. Case against Villalon is dismissed.
A lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the duty to be truthful in all his dealings.
However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense on behalf
of his or her clients opponent. She (Villalon) is not duty bound to build the case for her
clients opponent, Fernandez.
The cause of action chosen by Palacios was for the annulment of the Deed of
Donation. Client Palacios informed her that the Deed of Sale was void for lack of
consideration. Also, it was not registered and was not the basis of the transfer of title of
Palacios property to Fernandez. Therefore, it is not a necessary evidence/fact to their
case.

De La Serna a requested for the inhibition of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga claiming
that Justice Tinga, who was the ponente of the decision, received P10 Million from Mr. Johnny Chan
in exchange for a favorable decision. De la serna alleges JOHNNY CHAN curtly told him that Chan
already given out 10M to JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA in exchange for a favorable Decision in the
case between Fudot and Catltleya land(Mr. Chan is a representative of Cattleya land). Atty. De La
Serna said that Justice Tinga abandoned the doctrine in the case Lim v, Jorge to accommodate Mr.
Chan. He also said that the case was prioritized for resolution and that Mr. Chan had prior knowledge
of the outcome of the case before the decision was promulgated.
However, Mr. Chan related that he approached De La Serna for the purpose of amicably
settling their case with Cattleya, and offered him to be their retainer in Bohol. However, he denied
having said to De La Serna that he had already spent so much money for the Supreme Court
ISSUE
W/N Atty. De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt.
HELD
Atty. De La Serna is guilty of indirect contempt.
Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the Court by setting up an opposition to its
authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's
orders but such conduct that tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law
into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. Indirect contempt is
one committed out of or not in the presence of the court that tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or
embarrass the court and justice. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice has also been considered to constitute indirect
contempt.
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. Corollary to his duty to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers is to support the courts against "unjust
criticism and clamor." His duty is to uphold the dignity and the authority of the courts to which he
owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice, as it is his sworn and moral duty
to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so
essential to the proper administration of justice
As part of the machinery for the administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to
the fore irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial
machinery. Thus, if he acquired reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated by judicial
officers, it is incumbent upon him to report the matter to the Court so that it may be properly acted
upon. An omission or even a delay in reporting may tend to erode the dignity of, and the public's trust
in, the judicial system.
This is not to say, however, that as an officer of the court, he cannot criticize the court. It is
a long recognized and respected right of a lawyer, or any person, for that matter, to be critical of
courts and magistrates as long as they are made in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary
action.
In this case, Atty. De La Serna's statements bear the badges of falsehood while the
common version of the witnesses who disputed his statements is imbued with the hallmarks of truth.
De La Serna's declarations were maliciously and irresponsibly made. They exceeded the boundaries
of decency and propriety. The libelous attack on the integrity and credibility of Justice Tinga tend to
degrade the dignity of the Court and erode public confidence that should be accorded to it.

MANUEL SEBASTIAN VS BAJAR

AC No. 3731, September 7, 2007

BONDOC V. JUDGE SIMBULAN

FACTS
There was a case for corruption in the judges sala. the private prosecutors
representing the government were repeatedly absent or unprepared.
This led to the case being dismissed. the lawyer/private prosecutor was unhappy
with the dismissal and accused the judge of favoritism and gross ignorance of the law.
The lawyer went to the congressman in their district and through him filed a case
against the judge. this subsequent reached the supreme court.
HELD
The supreme court found the judge innocent and the lawyer was found to be the
one behind the case (against the judge) not the congressman.
The lawyer was found guilty of indirect contempt and given a stern warning as
well as fined for 2500php by the court.
Lesson: if you file a case against a judge file it within the justice system (ie office
of the court administrator / IBP) not with your congressman or other non-judicial people.

FACTS
Respondent Bajar is a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assisstance
(BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform who represented Fernando Tanlioco in numerous
cases which raised the same issues. Tanlioco is an agricultural lessee of aland owned by
complainants spouse and sister-in-law. The said landowners filed an ejectment case against
Tanlioco on the basis of a conversion order of the land use from agricultural to residential. RTC
ordered for tanliocos ejectment subject to the paymeny of disturbance compensation said judgement
was affirmed by the CA and SC. Atty. Bajar as Tanliocos counsel filed another case for specific
performance to produce the conversion order which was dismissed. Respondent then filed a case for
maintenance of possession with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
said cased raised the same issues as the previous case filed.The Court issued a resolution requiring
Bajar to comment on the complaint lodged against her which she complied with after filing a second
motion for extension of time to submit comment. The court in turn issued a resolution requiring Bajar
to file a Rejoinder within ten days from notice. It then ordered herein respondent to show cause why
she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for failure to comply with the Courts resolution.
Herein respondent obstructed, disobeyed, resisted, rebelled, and impeded the final decisions of the
RTC, CA and the SC and likewise committed contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics.
ISSUE
Rule 10.03 of the CPR for she misused the rules of procedure through forum shopping to
obstruct the administration of justice.
Whether or not Atty. Bajar is guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the court which is
a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment.
RULING
Yes. Bajars cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the SC constitute utter
disrespect to the judicial institution. Said conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A court;s
resolution is not to be construed as a mere request nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately or selectively. Bajars obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts orders not only
betrays a flaw in her character, but also underscores her disrespect of the courts lawful orders which
is only too deserving of reproof. Bajars failure to file a Rejoinder and to file a comment also
constitutes gross misconduct. The court defined Gross misconduct as any inexcusable, shameful,
flagrant, or unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned in the administration of justice
which is prejudicial to the rights of the partiesor to the right determination of a cause. It is a conduct
that is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstitnate or intentional purpose.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 3 years

HEGNA V. PADERANGA
FACTS
Hegna was the lessee of a portion of land owned by the Baclayon spouses for 10 years
but during this period the Panaguinip spouses by means of force, threat, intimidation, stealth and
strategy (FISTS) entered upon the vacant portion of the lot and constructed a shop for which he filed
a forcible entry case.
Hegna won and the Panaguinip spouses were sentenced to vacate the leased premises
and to pay complainant compensatory damages for illegal occupation. When the MTCC of Cebu
issued a writ of execution and the Sheriff levied certain properties of the spouses they sent a letter
dated Dec 2001 to Hegna for a possible amicable settlement which he denied. Then Atty. Paderanga
filed a Third Party Complaint alleging that he bought the lot and the vehicle during November and
December of 2001 which caused the failure to levy the properties by the Sheriff.
Hegna then filed a letter complaint to the Office of the bar confidant for deliberately
falsifying documents, causing delay and a possible denial of justice. He also filed criminal charges
against Atty. Paderanga & Atty. Madarang (notary public) for falsification of public documents and the
Panaguinip spouses for false testimony and perjury. His grounds were (1) the lot had no record of
transfer with the Register of Deeds, (2) the registration of the vehicle didnt reflect any change of
ownership & (3) the Notarial Register Book showed tampering and erasures.
The City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of prima facie evidence of
guilt but referred the administrative complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation. Atty. Paderangas defense alleged that for ESTATE PLANNING purposes, he
intentionally left these properties in the name of the previous owner and that he alleged
discrepancies in the notarization were made to correct mistakes so that entries will speak the truth.
The Investigating Commissioner found that the dismissal was improper in light of the letter
handwritten by Respondents clients, written in Cebuano, asking for mercy and forgiveness in
relation to the forcible entry case. Such letter was no longer necessary if indeed there was a
GENUINE transfer of ownership of properties. In addition, there were several instances where Atty.
Paderanga will meet with Hegna offering settlement and it was only when he denied them that he
received the Third Party Complaint.
ISSUE
W/n there was indeed a genuine transfer of the lot and vehicle to Atty. Paderanga?
HELD
Commissioner is convinced that there was indeed an anomaly which constitutes a violation
of the Canons of Professional Responsibility so given 1 year suspension. His non-registration of the
sale transaction so it would not appear in the records of the BIR, the City Assessor or the Register of
Deeds, on the Land Registration Office so that he would not pay for the expenses of the sale and
transfer twice, once he decided to sell; or place them in his childrens name, and avoid paying
estate and inheritance taxes upon his death.
Art. 1491 A lawyer ought to have known that he cannot acquire the property of his
client which is in litigation.

violated Rule 1.01 which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

violated the Lawyers Oath, which mandates that he should support the Constitution, obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein, and do no
falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court. Further, he has also failed to live
up to the standard set by law that he should refrain from counseling or abetting
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. The act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying tax may not be
illegal per se; but, as a servant of the law, a lawyer should make himself an exemplar for
others to emulate.

FOODSPHERE V. MAURICIO
FACTS
Foodsphere, Inc. is the owner of CDO grocery products. One day, a Mr. Cordero
bought canned goods from a grocery store, one of them being a CDO liver spread
canned good. When Mr. Cordero and his family ate the liver spread, they found that it
tasted sour and subsequently discovered that the canned good was infested with a
colony of worms. A complaint was filed with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration
(BFAD) and a subsequent investigation confirmed the presence of the parasites. BFAD
ordered a hearing between Foodsphere and the Corderos, where the latter demanded
P150k. Foodsphere refused, resulting to the Corderos threatening to bring up the matter
to the media.
Meanwhile, Atty Mauricio faxed Foodsphere a sample front page of a tabloid he
was involved with, which contained articles discrediting the latter, and threatened to
publish it if they didnt pay the amount the Corderos wanted. Foodsphere refused as well.
Atty Mauricio thus proposed a Kasunduan between the two, where Foodsphere agreed
to settle the matter for a lower amount, but added that Foodsphere advertise in Mauricios
tabloids and tv shows, in exchange for the withdrawal of the complaint. The Corderos
withdrew their complaint and BFAD dismissed the complaint against Foodsphere.
Mauricio then sent Foodsphere an Advertising Contract asking the latter
advertisements of various media (which were a lotand expensive!) owned by Mauricio.
As a sign of goodwill, Foodsphere offered to patronize some advertisements only.
Mauricio was disappointed with this and threatened to proceed with the publications. And
a few weeks later, Mauricio, in his radio talk show (Batas ng Bayan) held a guessing
contest with questions that asked which company had worms in its liver spread. He also
wrote in his columns and aired in his tv shows about the same topic.
Foodsphere filed criminal and civil complaints against Mauricio about the
discrediting remarks that he has been making against the company. Foodsphere also filed
the present administrative complaint against Mauricio to the IBP, where he was ordered
not to make any more statements on the matter. Notwithstanding the pending cases
against him, Mauricio continued to publish articles against Foodsphere and discredit them
in his tv shows. Because of this, the IBP ordered that Mauricio be suspended for 2 years.
Mauricio now challenges the validity of the suspension.
ISSUE/S
W/N Mauricios suspension was valid.
HELD
YES! Mauricio suspended for 3 years.
Continued Attacks Despite Pending Cases = Violation Of Rule 13.02
Despite the pendency of the case against Mauricio, and IBPs orders that he
discontinue with his actions, he still continued with his attacks against Foodsphere and its
products. This is a clear and conscious violation the Code of Professional Responsibility
which is an improper conduct of a member of the bar.
NOTE: The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be
underestimated.

HILADO V. DAVID
HEIRS OF FALAME V. BAGUIO

FACTS
-

Mrs. Hilado filed an action against Assad to annul the sale of several house & lot between
Assad and her now deceased husband, during the Japanese occupation
Assads counsel is Atty. Francisco
Mrs. Hilados counsels are the following: Delgado, Dizon, Flores and Rodrigo
Atty. Dizon wrote Atty. Francisco to discontinue representing Assad because Mrs. Hilado
consulted her about the case and even turned over some documents to Atty. Francisco
Atty. Francisco even wrote a legal opinion/letter addressed to Mrs. Hilado regarding the
same case, which states that Atty. Francisco will not represent Mrs. Hilado in the case and
he thinks that the action against Assad will not prosper
Mrs. Hilados counsel filed a motion to DISQUALIFY Atty. Francisco
Atty. Franciscos version of the story:
o
Mrs. Hilado came to see Atty. Francisco about the case, but he refused to
become her counsel because he thinks that the action will not prosper
o
Days later, Atty. Franciscos assistant, Atty. Agrava, informed him that Mrs.
Hilado left some expediente in the firm. Atty. Francisco instructed Atty. Agrava to
return the expediente because they will not handle the case of Mrs. Hilado
o
Later, the firms stenographer showed Atty. Francisco a letter allegedly dictated
by Atty. Agrava which explains to Mrs. Hilado why they refuse to take the case
o
Atty. Francisco allegedly signed the letter without reading it
o
Later on, Assad went to Atty. Franciscos office. Afterwards, Atty. Francisco
accepted the retainer fee
Lower Court Held: no other information was transmitted to Atty. Francisco other than those
in plaintiffs complaint and there was no attorney-client relationship between Atty. Francisco
and Mrs. Hilado. Hence, motion to disqualify is denied.

FACTS
Plaintiffs, heirs of the late Lydio Falame, allege that their father engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Baguio to represent him in an action for forcible entry (in which Lydio and his brother
Raleigh were one of the defendants). As counsel, Atty. Baguio used and submitted evidence of: 1.) A
special power of attorney executed by Lydio in favor of his brother, Raleigh Falame, appointing him
as his attorney-in-fact; and 2.) affidavit of Raleigh Falame, executed before the respondent, in which
Raleigh stated that Lydio owned the property subject of the case.
Plaintiffs further allege that even after a favorable ruling for the defendants in the said
case, Lydio still retained the services of Atty. Baguio as his legal adviser and counsel of his
businesses until his death in 1996.
However, in October of 2000 Atty. Baguio, in representation of spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame,
filed a compliant against the plaintiffs involving the same property that was the subject matter in the
first case. Said complaint sought the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, its registration in the
registry of deeds, TCT issued as a consequence of the registration of the sale and the real estate
mortgage.
Plaintiffs in turn, filed an administrative case against Atty. Baguio alleging that by acting as
counsel for the spouses Falame in the second case, wherein they were impleaded a defendants,
respondent violated his oath of office and duty as an attorney. They contend that the spouses
Falames interests are adverse to those of his former client, Lydio.
The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving Investigating
Commissioner Winston Abuyuans report and recommendation for the dismissal of this case.
ISSUE
W/N Atty. Baguio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD

ISSUE
W/N there was an attorney-client relationship between Atty. Francisco and Mrs.
Hilado
HELD
Yes, there was an attorney-client relationship because the purpose of Mrs. Hilado
was to obtain Atty. Franciscos personal service as a lawyer
Retainer and frequency of consultation is not needed , so long as the purpose is
to obtain professional advice or assistance and the attorney permits, then an
attorney-client relationship is established
Formality is not essential
Even is no secret communication was given, as long as there is an attorneyclient relationship which precludes accepting opposite partys retainer in the
same litigation regardless of what type of information was received
Only thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys
which is of paramount importance to administration of justice
Even if the information was only received by an assistant, it is still considered as
professional service, besides an information imparted to a member of a firm is
made available to the entire firm
Hence, Atty. Francisco is disqualified as Assads counsel
Ratio: Rule 15.02 a lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client

Yes, he violated the rule. Rule 15.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct,
act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.
The test is whether, on behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to contest that which his
duty another client requires him to oppose or when the possibility of such situation will develop. The
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.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation will be directly
adverse to any of his present or former clients. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of
loyalty.
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. The clients confidence once
reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment. The protection given
to a client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by
the partys ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client.
In the case at bar, respondent admitted having jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as
defendants in the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-client relation between Lydio and respondent
was established despite the fact that it is immaterial whether such employment was paid, promised
or charged for.
As defense counsel in the first civil case respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely
owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property,
respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that
Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the
property, committing acts which debase respondents rights as co-owner. The fact that the attorneyclient relation had ceased by reason of Lydios death or through the completion of the specific task
for which respondent was employed is not reason for respondent to advocate a position opposed to
the of Lydio. And while plaintiffs have never been respondents clients, they derive their rights to the
property from Lydios ownership of it which respondent maintained in the first civil case.

POSIDIO V. VITAN

JERRY T. WONG V. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II

FACTS

FACTS

Posidio engaged the services of Vitan in a Testate Proceeding of the deceased

Nicolasa Arroyo to which she paid Php 20,000.00 as legal fees. However, Vitan withdrew
his appearance in the said case thus, Posidio had to engage the services of another
lawyer. Six years after, Vitan contacted Posidio and told her that he has with some tax
declarations and other documents purportedly forming part of the estate of Nicolasa
Arroyo, but was not included in the inventory of properties for distribution. He convinced
complainant to file another case to recover her share in the alleged undeclared properties
and demanded P100,000.00 as legal fees. After several months, however, respondent
failed to institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case and
asked for the return of the P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite repeated
demands.
The lower court ruled in favor of Posidio and ordered Vitan to return the Php
100,000.00 and pay an additional Php 20,000.00 as interest and damages. In
compliance, Vitan issued a Prudential Bank check that was dishonored later on. Despite
being sent a notice of dishonor and the repeated demands to pay, Vitan refused to honor
his obligation.
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his Report finding
Vitan guilty of violating the lawyers oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in
defrauding his client and issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same. The
IBP penalized Vitan with a reprimand with stern warning that a similar misconduct will
warrant a more severe penalty.

Jerry Wong as owner of a business selling agricultural and veterinary products

retained the services of Atty. Moya for the purpose of collecting due and demandable
debts in favor of the company. Sometimes also, Atty. Moya handled personal cases of
Wong and his wife.
Later, Atty. Moya asked financial help from Wong for the construction of his
house and the purchase of a car. Wong purchased a car on installment basis for Atty.
Moya. Wong issued postdated checks to cover the payment of the car while Atty. Moya
issued checks in favor of Wong to reimburse him for purchasing the car. The checks
issued by Wong were encashed by Transfarm (car seller) however, the checks issued by
Atty. Moya in favor of Wong were dishonored for the reason account closed. Despite
repeated demands, Atty. Moya refused to replace the dishonored checks.
Atty. Moya also introduced Wong to Quirino Tomlin from whom the construction
materials for his house was obtained. He bought this on credit but Atty. Moya filed to pay
this indebtedness causing embarrassment to Wong. Atty. Moya also handled a case of
the Wong spouses against Berting Diwa. Judgment was rendered in favor of the spouses
and as satisfaction of the judgment, Diwa paid P15, 680.50. Atty. Moya as the counsel of
the spouses received the payment but did not inform them. The Wongs only found out
about the payment of money when they got hold of the Manifestation with Prayer to
Terminate Proceedings.
The IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Moya to file his answer to the complaint for
disbarment filed by Wong. Atty. Moya filed 3motions for extensions (after the 1 st motion
was granted and the time had elapsed, he filed another one and so on and so forth).
Subsequently, he filed a Motion to Dismiss.
The IBP-CBD denied the motion to dismiss and required him to file an answer.
Atty. Moya filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. He then filed for an
extension to file his answer which was granted but with a warning that no further
extension requests will be entertained. When the time to elapse was near he filed a Very
Urgent Motion for Extension to File Answer but the IBP-CBD did not accept this hence he
was declared in default after failing to file his answer.
The IBP-CBD ordered both parties to file their position papers because a
complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in 2years from
the date of the professional misconduct which in this case occurred in 2002 and that it
was already 2005. Atty. Moya did not file any pleadings at all.
The IBP recommended that Atty. Moya be suspended for 1year. The IBP Board
of Governors modified this and suspended Atty. Moya for 2years.

ISSUE
Whether or not Vitan should be penalized?
HELD
The Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the IBP. However, they find that
the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the gravity of wrong committed by Vitan.
In the instant case, respondent received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal
fees for filing additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo.
However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that he immediately return
the amount to complainant upon demand. Having received payment for services which
were not rendered, respondent was unjustified in keeping complainants money. His
obligation was to immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite
complainants repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where he pledges not
to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with good fidelity to his
clients.
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come
to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of
his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the
Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property
under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon
demand. The lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a
presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on
him. The conversion by a lawyer of funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation
of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

ISSUE
Whether or not the suspension of 2years is justifiable?
HELD
1)

2)

Yes!
Atty. Moya was charged for having failed to pay his debts and for issuing worthless
checks. He did not deny these allegations. Rule1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. It has been held that the issuance of worthless checks
as a violation of this rule and constitutes a gross misconduct.
The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same
constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public

3)
4)

confidence in the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of issuing worthless
checks by his dire financial conditions. He should not have contracted debts which
are beyond his financial capacity to pay. If he suffered financial reverses he should
have explained this with particularity and not though generalized and unsubstantiated
allegations.
Atty. Moya is accused of delay in the delivery of the sum of money due to his client.
His failure to explain such delay cannot be excused by his bare allegation that the
same had already been transmitted to the complainant.
His conduct in the course of the IBP proceedings in this case is also a matter of
serious concern. He submitted a motion to dismiss after requesting several
extensions of time to file his answer. His failure to attend the hearings and belated
plea to dismiss the case, despite orders to the contrary, show a callous disregard of
the lawful orders which caused undue delay in the IBP proceeding. This conduct
runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and violates
the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no
man for money or malice.

5)

6)

It is stressed that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with

conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the
highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the Rules of the Legal
Profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of
the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
As to the penalty, failure to pay debts and issuance of worthless checks constitutes
gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with 1year suspension.
However, in this case, Atty. Moya is suspended for 2years because aside from
issuing worthless checks and failure to pay his debts, he also seriously breached his
client's trust and confidence to his personal advantage and had shown a wanton
disregard of the IBP's Orders in the course of its proceedings.