Canon 14.

A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE

NEEDY
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES REGARDLESS OF STATUS
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latter's race, sex. Creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
RA 9999 FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition
of free legal aid.
PROVIDING COUNSEL DE OFFICIO
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an
indigent client if:
(a) He is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
competently;
(b) He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective
client.
SAME STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR PAYING AND NON PAYING
CLIENTS
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his
professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with paying clients.
Canon 15 Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty
Dr. Lee v. Atty. Simando, A.C. No. 9537, 10 June 2013
Facts:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee. Atty. Simando
went to see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter could help a certain Felicito M.
Mejorado (Mejorado) for his needed funds. Mejorado was Atty. Simandos
client in a case claiming rewards against the Bureau of Customs. Dr. Lee
initially refused to lend money but Atty. Simando persisted and assured her
that Mejorado will pay his obligation. He even offered to be the co-maker of
Mejorado and assured her that Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due.
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent visits to
convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave in to her lawyer's demands, and finally

agreed to give Mejorado sizeable amounts of money. When the said

obligation became due, despite Dr. Lee's repeated demands, Mejorado failed
and refused to comply with his obligation. Since Atty. Simando was still her
lawyer then, Dr. Lee instructed him to initiate legal action against Mejorado.
Atty. Simando said he would get in touch with Mejorado and ask him to pay
his obligation without having to resort to legal action. However, even after
several months, Mejorado still failed to pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty.
Simando why no payment has been made yet. Dr. Lee then reminded Atty.
Simando that he was supposed to be the co-maker of the obligation of
Mejorado, to which he replied: "Di kasuhan din ninyo ako!" Despite
complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and failed to bring
legal actions against Mejorado. Thus, complainant was forced to terminate
her contract with Atty. Simando and demand payment from him as well.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interest
Ruling:
Yes. Clearly, it is improper for respondent to appear as counsel for one
party against the adverse party who is also his client, since a lawyer is
prohibited from representing conflicting interests. He may not, without being
guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflict with that of his former or present client. Respondents assertion that
there is no conflict of interest because complainant and respondent are his
clients in unrelated cases fails to convince. His representation of opposing
clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of
interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. Moreover, with
the subject loan agreement entered into by the complainant and respondent,
who are both his clients, readily shows an apparent conflict of interest, more
so when he signed as co-maker.
GONZALES vs. CABUCANA, A.C. No. 6836. January 23, 2006)
Facts:

Issue:
Whether or not a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests of a client,
although the cases are not related.
Ruling:
The prescription 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. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not

be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose
for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the
confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other
as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and
the nature or conditions of the lawyer's respective retainers with each of
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both
clients.
CANON15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.
Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication
in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes
Rule 15.05 A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Regala vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
The matters raised in the present case are an offshoot of the institution of
the PCGG against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal
defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes
shares of stocks in the several corporations in PCGG Case No. 33, entitled
Republic of the Philippines vs Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. Petitioners in this

case are all partners in ACCRA. Regala, Angara, Cruz, Concepcion, Vinluan,
Lazatin, Escueta and Hayudini (hereinafter ACCRA LAWYERS). Likewise,
private respondent ROCO is also a partner in ACCRA. ACCRA Law Firm
performed legal services for its clients, which included, among others, the
organization and acquisition of business associations and/or organizations,
with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted as
incorporators, or simply, as stockholders. The complaint in PCGG Case No.
0033 alleged that the ACCRA LAWYERS and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. conspired
with each other in setting up through the use of coconut levy funds the
financial and corporate framework and structures that led to the
establishment of UCPB, UNICOM and others and that through insidious
means and machinations, ACCRA, using its wholly-owned investment arm,
ACCRA Investments Corporation, became the holder of approximately fifteen
million shares representing roughly 3.3% of the total capital stock of UCPB as
of 31 March 1987. The PCGG wanted to establish through the ACCRA lawyers
that Mr. Cojuangco is their client and it was Cojuangco who furnished all the
monies to the subscription payment; hence, ACCRA LAWYERS acted as
dummies, nominees and/or agents by allowing themselves, among others, to
be used as instrument in accumulating ill-gotten wealth through government
concessions, etc., which acts constitute gross abuse of official position and
authority, flagrant breach of public trust, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines. On August 20, 1991,
PCGG filed a Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint which EXCLUDED
private respondent ROCO from the complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 as partydefendant, whereas ACCRA LAWYERS still were included still as defendants.
ACCRA LAWYERS subsequently filed their Comment/Opposition with CounterMotion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them
(exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent ROCO.
PCGG in its comment agreed to exclude the ACCRA LAWYERS on the ff
conditions: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission of
documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the
submission of the deeds of assignments ACCRA LAWYERS executed in favor
of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. SANDIGANBAYAN
RULING: DENIED the exclusion of ACCRA LAWYERS in PCGG Case No. 33 for
their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent PCGG.
ACCRA LAWYERS argue they are prohibited from revealing the identity of
their principal under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to
uphold at all times the confidentiality of information obtained during such
lawyer-client relationship.
Issue:

Can the PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) compel

petitioners to divulge its clients name?
Ruling:
As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. The general is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse
to divulge the name or identity of his client.
1) The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information
is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2) The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is
a client.
3) The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as
a general rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled to know
who his opponent is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against
unknown forces.
Except:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing
the clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he
sought the lawyers advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is
privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client
unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an
individual of a crime, the clients name is privileged. That client identity is
privileged in those instances where a strong probability exists that the
disclosure of the client's identity would implicate the client in the very
criminal activity for which the lawyers legal advice was obtained.
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 interests 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. (PEREZ VS DELATORRE) There is a 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
(PEREZ VS DELATORRE)
Perez Vs. De la Torre
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. De la Torre represented conflicting interest?
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. De la torre represented conflicting interest, as found by the IBP, at
the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in the
murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing the family of
the murder victim. 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.
Heirs of Falame VS Atty. Baguio
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants
in the first civil case. 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
respondent's rights as a co-owner.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interest
between his clients?
Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty. The fact that the attorney-client 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 that of Lydio. Precedents tell us that even
after the termination of his employment, an attorney may not act as counsel
against his client in the same general matter, even though, while acting for
his former client, he acquired no knowledge which could operate to his
clients disadvantage in the subsequent adverse employment.
Atty. Baguio meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. He is further admonished
to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and to
bear in mind that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
Canon 16. Hold in Trust Clients Moneys and Properties
RULE 16.02 Keep Clients Fund Separate A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Hernandez v. Go A.C No. 1526 January 31, 2005
Facts:
Nazaria Hernandezs husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husbands numerous creditors
demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage
contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and aware of impending
suits for sums of money against her, complainant engaged the legal services
of Atty. Jose C. Go. Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of
helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to
give him her land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pay her
creditors. He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor
without any monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on
condition that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots which were mortgaged to her creditors. When
the mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced
her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,
respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging to
complainant. Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent
did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his
own funds and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her
real properties worth millions.
In his answer, respondent denied the
allegations and that he sold, in good faith, complainants lots to various
buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. On several occasions,
he extended financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live
with his family. His children used to call her "Lola" due to her frequent visits
to his residence. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to

state a cause of action. A careful examination and evaluation of the

evidence submitted by the parties showed that all the properties of the
complainant are presently owned by the respondent by virtue of several
deeds of sale executed by the complainant in favor of the respondent
without monetary consideration. It is evident from the records that
respondent was the one who notarized the documents involving the said
properties redeemed or repurchased by the complainant from her creditors
which ended up in respondents name. The IBP recommended he be
suspended for 6 months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Jose Go is in violation of Canon 16 of the Professional
Responsibility Code
RULING:
Atty. Jose Go (herein respondent) is found to have violated this Canon for his
acts of acquiring for himself complainants lots entrusted to him are, by any
standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden
act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent
and not mere error in judgment
Undoubtedly, respondents conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal
profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in
deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts.
Lawyers are
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of
the legal profession.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer
may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3)gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral
conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of
the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority
to do so; WHERFORE, Respondent JOSE S. GO is found guilty of gross
misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
RULE 16.03 Delivery of Funds; Lawyers Lien
Busios v. Ricafort A.C. No. 4349, 22 December 1997
Facts:

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa

by misappropriating the sum of P32, 000.00. Of this amount, P30, 000.00
was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank account of
complainants husband, while P2, 000.00 represented the amount
respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil
Case when no such bond was required. Respondent did not appear in the
administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay
the amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the
administrative case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco Ricafort violated Canon 16 of the Professional
Responsibility Code and therefore be disbarred of his practice of law?
RULING:
It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay
any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good
fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his
client that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his
private property or use it for his personal purposes without his clients
consent.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his
clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Francisco Ricafort is guilty of for dishonesty, grave
misconduct, grossly unethical behavior. And the court resolves to DISBAR
respondent from the practice of law and stricken from the ROLLS OF
ATTORNEY.
Canon 17 Provides that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients
and must therefore be always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
them.
Somosot V. Pontevedra AC no. 4285 May 2, 2006
Issue:
Whether respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility in
failing to file the required memorandum in Civil Case and for keeping the
money order despite complainants request for its return?
Held:
Respondent failed to exercise that degree of diligence required of him in the
performance of his duties. While it was impossible for him to prepare a

memorandum without the transcripts of stenographic notes and his case

folder, and while respondent may have been constrained simply to enter into
an agreement with the opposing counsel to submit the case for decision
without memorandum, respondent failed to inform the trial court of said
agreement. He should have filed a manifestation before the trial court
informing it of the agreement instead of leaving the trial court waiting and
wondering whether said memoranda will be filed at all. His omission not only
gave complainant much anxiety, it also needlessly compounded the long
delay in the resolution of the 23-year-old case. Worse, respondent did not
inform complainant that the case had been submitted for decision without
memorandum despite complainants repeated requests for information
regarding the status of her case submitted for decision without
memorandum despite complainants repeated requests for information
regarding the status of her case.
Angalan V. Delante AC no. 7181 February 6, 2009
Facts:
In April 1971, herein complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of their
property to the Eustaquio espouses in consideration of a loan in the amount
of P15,000. The Eustaquios prepared a document and sked the complainants
to sign it; but because complainants were illiterates, they affixed their marks
instead. It turned out that the document was a deed of absolute sale and not
a real estate mortgage. Hence, TCT No. 9926 was issued in the name of
Navarro
Eustaquio.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. Leonido Delante in
November 1971 as shown in the receipt by respondent of P12,000
representing full payment of his professional fees from the complainants.
Thereafter, an amicable settlement was entered into between complainants
and the Eustaquios which stipulated that the complainants would repurchase
the lot at P30,000. But since the complainants did not have the money, Atty.
Delante advanced the money to complainants, possessed the property and
gathered
its
produce.
When the complainants tried to repay the money and recover the property,
Atty. Delante refused. Complainants learned that Delante transferred the title
of the property to his name as evidenced by TCT No. T-57932.
On April 30, 2004, complainants filed with the RTC of Davao a complaint for
(1) nullification of the deed of absolute sale, and (2) nullification of TCT No. T57932; and on December 28, 2005 charged respondent with gross violation
of the Code Professional Responsibility. In April 2007, complainants filed with

the Court a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit
of desistance.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Yes, His vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts was too flimsy to gain
belief and acceptance. It is unbelievable that a buyer would entrust his
money intended for payment of a property but allowed that said property be
registered under the name of another, specifically his lawyer, simply runs
counter to ordinary human nature.
Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in them. Respondent should have been mindful of the trust and
confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are
illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them.
Complainants engaged the services of respondent in the hope that he would
help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred
the title of the property to his name.
In Re: Maquera B.M. No. 793. July 30, 2004
Facts:
In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this
Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera (Maquera) from the
practice of law in Guam. He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam
for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property as payment for his legal
services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high
fee for handling his client's case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where
he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment
or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign court's action is by reason
of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer's oath.
The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation report and recommendation. In its decision,
the Superior Court of Guam stated that Maquera was the counsel of a certain
Castro. Benavente the creditor Castro, obtained a judgement against Castro,

thus Castro;s property was to be sold at a public auction in satisfaction of his

obligation to Benavente. However, Castro retains the right of redemption. In
consideration of Maqueras legal services, Castro entered into an oral
agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the
latter. On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by
paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the property transferred in his name.And
after, sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred
Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).
The Guam Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of
Guam praying that Maquera be sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and
1.8(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in
Guam. In its Petition, the Committee claimed that Maquera obtained an
unreasonably high fee for his services. The Committee further alleged that
Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the requirement in Rule
1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into a business
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to
a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the lawyer's
acquisition of such interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully
disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in writing.
On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP
concluded that although the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct,
"there is no evidence to establish that Maquera committed a breach of ethics
in the Philippines."However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely
for his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977,
which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the
Revised Rules of Court.
Issue:
May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from
the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted
as an attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of the Philippine
Bar for the same infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction?
Held:
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment ordering
Maqueras suspension from the practice of law in Guam does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Under
Section 27,[34] Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to
his suspension in Guam are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in

this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the foreign courts action includes
any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
CASES:
LEGARDA vs. CA, NEW CATHAY HOUSE, INC.G.R. No. 94457
18, 1991

March

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner can recover his property
And Whether or not the counsel is negligent in handling the case of her client
HELD:
The Court finds that the negligence of the counsel in this case appears to be
so gross and inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact, that after
petitioner gave said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by
asking him to file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate
court, again counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he
received a copy of adverse judgment of appellate court, he did not do
anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. Such
reckless and gross negligence should not be allowed to bind the petitioner.
Because of this, she lost the case as well as the title and ownership of the
property, which is worth millions. As member of the Philippine Bar he owes
complete fidelity to the cause of his client. He should give adequate
attention, care and time to his cases. And once he agrees to handle a case,
he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he should do any
less, then he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. In this case, the Sheriffs Cert

of Sale and the subsequent final deed of sale covering the same property are
null and void. Respondent is directed to convey said property to the
petitioner and the register of Deeds is ordered to cancel the registration of
the said property in the name of respondent and issue a new one in the
name of the petitioner.

ENDAYA V. OCA
A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003
Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and
his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the
beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel.
Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was
assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the prelim conference,
Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge
then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper or upon
expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the
complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the
case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to RTC. Oca
failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses
were ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not
receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed
receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Wilfredo Oca committed professional misconduct

HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law. In his comment, Oca put
up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would
just be a repetition of the answer. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder and once
again, he failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a
rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary.
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything. Oca only
appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses
thereafter. The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and

honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing
to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed
the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot
just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of
record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Ocas story shows his
appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of respect for the
courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer. However Endaya
misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when
in fact it was prepared by a lawyer. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to
support their claim and the PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Given
these circumstances the professional conduct, Oca does not warrant
disbarment but only suspension.
CARANDANG VS. OBMINA
A.C. No. 7813 April 21, 2009
Facts:
This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina. Atty. Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he
filed. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform Carandang
of the adverse decision in said case and for failure to appeal the decision.
The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an Order directing respondent Atty.
Gilbert S. Obmina to submit his Answer. However, what the Commission
received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. ObminaMuaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further alleged that her father
is already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March
2001 and had already retired from the practice of law.
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa
to produce and present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of
appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now really a
permanent resident of the United States of America.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with
competence and diligence as pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Ethics and to inform his client as to the status of his case
pursuant to Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.

Ruling:
There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified
complainant in any manner about the decision. Blame should not be

attributed solely to the respondent because it was observed that

complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure to maintain contact with
Atty. Obmina. The Supreme Court held that
Clients should maintain contact with their counsel from time to time and
inform themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that
standard of care which an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his business.
Nonetheless, the Court underscored the duty of respondent to notify his
client as to what happened to his case. However, the respondent who has in
his possession the complete files and address of the complainant, should
have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to what happened to
his case. Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client,
respondent is duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Ethics. That as a result of the respondents failure to
notify the complainant, the latter lost the case leading to his eviction. The
Court ordered that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year.

Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
ha to terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
of Court.
Rule 19.03 A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on
handling the case.
Canon 20 Attorneys Fee
Canon 20.01 Fee Guide
A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:nroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of
the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Roxas vs. De Zuzurregui G.R No. 152072, 481 SCRA 250 January 31,
2006 & July 12 2007
Facts:
1977, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed expropriation proceedings
against the Zuzuarreguis for parcels of land belonging to them situated in
Antipolo, Rizal with a total land area of 1, 790, 570.36. The Zuzuarreguis
engaged the legal services of Attys. Romeo G. Roxas and Santiago N. Pastor.
They executed a Letter-Agreement dated April 22, 1983 which indicated that
the contingent fees that the lawyers will receive at P11 or more per square
meter is thirty percent of the just compensation. The appropriate
proceedings thereafter ensued and on October 29, 1984, a Partial Decision
was rendered fixing the just compensation to be paid to the Zuzuarreguis at
P30 per square meter
The NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration for the lowering of the amount of
just compensation in accordance with applicable laws. Pending the resolution
of the MFR filed by the NHA, a joint special power of attorney was executed
by the Zuzuarreguis in favor of Attys. Roxas and Pastor. On December 10,
1985, a Letter-Agreement was executed by and between the Zuzuarreguis
and Attys. Roxas and Pastor which fixed the just compensation due the
Zuzuarreguis at P17, and anything in excess of that shall be the contingent
fees of Attys. Roxas and Pastor for their legal services. Resolution No. 1174
dated December 16, 1985, issued by the NHA, stated that the property
would be acquired at a cost of P19.50 per square meter and that it will be
paid in NHA Bonds which the yield would be based on the Central Bank rate
at the time of the payment
As a result of the NHA Resolution, a Compromise Agreement was executed
and it was approved by the Court in a Decision dated December 20,
1985.Computed at P19.50 per square meter, the property of the

Zuzuarreguis was expropriated at a total price of P34, 916, 122. The total
amount released by the NHA was P54, 500, 00. The difference of P19, 583,
878 is, undoubtedly, the yield of the bonds.The amount turned over to the
Zuzuarreguis by Atty. Roxas amounted to P30, 520, 000 in NHA bonds. On
August 25, 1987, a letter was sent by the Zuzuarreguis new counsel to
Attys. Roxas and Pastor demanding that the latter deliver to the Zuzuarreguis
the yield corresponding to bonds paid by the NHA within a period of 10 days
from receipt, under pain of administrative, civil and/or criminal action

Attys. Roxas and Pastor answered stating that the amount that they go
seems huge from the surface but it just actually passed their hands. On
September 29, 1987, a letter was again sent to Attys. Roxas and Pastor
formally terminating their services. The Zuzuarreguis then filed a civil action
for Sum of Money and Damages, they demanded that the yield on the NHA
bonds be turned over to them.
ISSUES
1. WON the letter-agreement executed by the parties should stand as law
between them
2. WON the contingent fees were reasonable
HELD
1. Yes. A contract is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby
one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render
some service. The Zuzuarreguis, in entering into the Letter-Agreement, fully
gave their consent thereto. In fact, it was them who sent the said letter to
Attys. Roxas and Pastor, for the purpose of confirming all matters which they
had agreed upon previously. There is absolutely no evidence to show that
anybody was forced into entering into the Letter-Agreement. It is basic that
a contract is the law between the parties.
2. No. Under the contract in question, Attys. Roxas and Pastor are to receive
contingent fees for their professional services.
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states: a contract for
contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the
compensation, but should always be subject t o the supervision of a court, as
to its reasonableness

Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states the
guidelines by which a lawyer should determine his fees (see original)
- Indubitably entwined with the lawyers duty to charge only reasonable fees
is the power of this Court to reduce the amount of attorneys fees if the same
is excessive and unconscionable (Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Attorneys fees are unconscionable if they affront ones sense of justice,
decency or reasonableness. Therefore, the power to determine the
reasonableness of attorneys fees stipulated by the parties is a matter falling
within the regulatory prerogative of the courts.
- In the instant case, Attys. Roxas and Pastor received an amount which is
equal to 44% of the just compensation paid by the NHA to the Zuzuarreguis.
Considering that there was no full blown hearing in the expropriation case,
ending as it did in a Compromise Agreement, the 44% is undeniably
excessive. In the opinion of the Court, 87.17% of the yields of the bond
should go to the Zuzuarreguis computing from the amounts stipulated in the
Letter-Agreement. The remaining amount is what is due to Attys. Roxas and
Pastor. The SC affirms the decision of CA with modification in the
computation of the attorneys contingent fees.
Canon 21 Preserve Clients Confidence
Hilado vs. David
FACTS:
In April 1945, Blandina Hilado filed a complaint to have some deeds of
sale annulled against Selim Assad. Attorney Delgado Dizon represented
Hilado. Assad was represented by a certain Atty. Ohnick. In January 1946,
Atty. Vicente Francisco replaced Atty. Ohnick as counsel for Assad and he
thenafter entered his appearance in court. In May 1946 or four months later,
Atty. Dizon filed a motion to have Atty. Francisco be disqualified because Atty.
Dizon found out that in June 1945, Hilado approached Atty. Francisco to ask
for additional legal opinion regarding her case and for which Atty. Francisco
sent Hilado a legal opinion letter. Atty. Francisco opposed the motion for his
disqualification. In his opposition, he said that no material information was
relayed to him by Hilado; that in fact, upon hearing Hilados story, Atty.
Francisco advised her that her case will not win in court; but that later,
Hilado returned with a copy of the Complaint prepared by Atty. Dizon; that
however, when Hilado returned, Atty. Francisco was not around but an
associate in his firm was there (a certain Atty. Federico Agrava); that Atty.
Agrava attended to Hilado; that after Hilado left, leaving behind the legal
documents, Atty. Agrava then prepared a legal opinion letter where it was
stated that Hilado has no cause of action to file suit; that Atty. Agrava had

Atty. Francisco sign the letter; that Atty. Francisco did not read the letter as
Atty. Agrava said that it was merely a letter explaining why the firm cannot
take on Hilados case. Atty. Francisco also pointed out that he was not paid
for his advice; that no confidential information was relayed because all
Hilado brought was a copy of the Complaint which was already filed in court;
and that, if any, Hilado already waived her right to disqualify Atty. Francisco
because he was already representing Assad in court for four months in the
said case. Judge Jose Gutierrez David ruled in favor of Atty. Francisco.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disqualified in the said civil case.
HELD:
Yes. There already existed an attorney-client relationship between
Hilado and Atty. Francisco. Hence, Atty. Francisco cannot act as counsel
against Hilado without the latters consent. As ruled by the Supreme Court,
to constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary that any
retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case
about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business
affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional
capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the
attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as established. Further: An
attorney is employed-that is, he is engaged in his professional capacity as a
lawyer or counselor-when he is listening to his clients preliminary statement
of his case, or when he is giving advice thereon, just as truly as when he is
drawing his clients pleadings, or advocating his clients cause in open court.
Anent the issue of what information was relayed by Hilado to Atty. Francisco:
It does not matter if the information relayed is confidential or not. So long as
the attorney-client relationship is established, the lawyer is proscribed from
taking other representations against the client. Anent the issue that the legal
opinion was not actually written by Atty. Francisco but was only signed by
him: It still binds him because Atty. Agrava, assuming that he was the real
author, was part of the same law firm. An information obtained from a client
by a member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted to the firm,
his associates or his employers. Anent the issue of the fact that it took Hilado
four months from the time Atty. Francisco filed his entry of appearance to file
a disqualification: It does not matter. The length of time is not a waiver of her
right. The right of a client to have a lawyer be disqualified, based on previous
atty-client relationship, as counsel against her does not prescribe.

Professional confidence once reposed can never be divested by expiration of

professional employment.
GENATO vs. SILAPAN
FACTS:
Atty. Silapan was leasing office space in Genatos building. Atty. Silapan
handled some of Genatos cases. After a while, Atty. Silapan borrowed money
from Genato to buy a car. Atty. Silapan bought the car, and issued a
postdated check to Genato. The check was dishonored. Genato filed a case
against Atty. Silapan under BP 22. In his defense, he alleged that Genato was
in the business of buying and selling deficiency taxed imported cars, shark
loans and other shady deals and that he was also involved in bribery cases.
Genato claimed that Atty. Silapan was guilty of breaking their confidential
lawyer-client relationship.
ISSUE:
Was Atty. Silapan guilty of the breach?
HELD:
No. While Canon 17 provides that a lawyer shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed on him, especially with privileged communication
the protection is only limited to communications which are legitimately and
properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not
extend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud.
Thus, here, the attorney-client privilege does not attach, there being no
professional employment in the strictest sense.
However, the disclosures were not indispensable to protect Atty.
Silapans rights as they were not pertinent to the case. It was improper for
him to disclose those information as they were not the subject matter of
litigation at hand. His professional competence and legal advice were not
being attacked in the said case. A lawyer must conduct himself with integrity.
He is therefore suspended for 6 months.
Canon 22 Withdrawal of Services for Good Cause
Rule 22.01 A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;

d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult

for him to carry out the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails
to comply with the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retainer 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, including all information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.
Montano vs. IBP A.M. No. 4215 (Resolution), [May 21, 2001], 410
PHIL 201-209)
Facts:
Atty. Juan Dealca was hired to file a brief for Felicisimo Montano on November
14, 1992 since the latters legal counsel, Atty. Ronaldo Gerona could not
prepare and submit the appellants brief due to his daughters ailment. The
parties agreed upon attorneys fees in the amount of Php15k, 50% payable
upon acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon termination of
the case. Accordingly, the complainant paid the 50%. Then, Atty. Dealca
obliged the complainant to pay P3.5k even prior to the termination of the
case which Montano complied with. Likewise thereafter, Atty. Dealca
demanded the full payment of attorneys fees prior to the filing of appellants
brief. When Montano failed to pay the remaining P4k, Atty. Dealca withdrew
his services and sent a note with the following words:
28 February 1994
Pepe and Del Montano,
For breaking your promise, since you do not want to fulfill your
end of the bargain, here's your reward:
Henceforth, you lawyer for yourselves. Here are your papers.
Johnny

The complainant herein filed a motion praying for the imposition of the
maximum penalty of disbarment for the conduct shown by the

respondent counsel which exceeded the ethical standards of the law

profession. The Court referred the case to the IBP.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Dealca should be disbarred from the practice of
law for contemptuous conduct
Held:
Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw
his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services when the client
deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services, in the present case, Atty.
Dealca's withdrawal was unjustified considering that the amount owing to
him was only P3,500.00.
The Court, however, does not agree with complainant's contention that the
maximum penalty of disbarment should be imposed on respondent lawyer.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be
imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty,
such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. In the
case at bar, reprimand is deemed sufficient.
Obando v. Figueras, G.R. No. 134854, 322 SCRA 148, 18 January
2000
Facts:
In 1964, Alegria Figueras, together with her stepsons, Eduardo and Francisco,
filed a Petition for settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased
husband Jose Figueras. 3 However, she died while settlement of the estate
was pending. Hence, Eduardo assumed administration of the joint estates of
Don Jose and Doa Alegria. Felizardo S. Obando (herein petitioner), a nephew
of Doa Alegria claimed that Alegria left a will authorizing him as coadministrator in the properties. Eduardo insisted that the alleged Will was a
forgery, thus the document was submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) for examination and comparison of Doa Alegria's alleged
signature which the NBI confirmed as forged. Petitioner Obando was
convicted of estafa through falsification of a public document.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in sanctioning the trial
courts allowance of respondents joint motion to dismiss, despite the fact

that one of the lawyer-movants therein was no longer the counsel of record
for respondent Figueras at the time the motion was filed.
Held:
Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of
counsel in accordance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Counsel may be validly substituted only if the following requisites are
complied with: (1) new counsel files a written application for substitution; (2)
the client's written consent is obtained; and (3) the written consent of the
lawyer to be substituted is secured, if it can still be; if the written consent
can no longer be obtained, then the application for substitution must carry
proof that notice of the motion has been served on the attorney to be
substituted in the manner required by the Rules.
In the case at bar, Eduardo did not dismiss Attorney Yuseco. In fact, the
former manifested that he had been tricked by Petitioner Obando into
signing the aforesaid Manifestation and Motion and Compromise Agreement.
Besides, the filing of the Motion to Dismiss was not prejudicial but beneficial
to the said respondent; hence, he had no reason to complain. At the
discretion of the court, an attorney who has already been dismissed by the
client is allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client's rights.
In the present case, it should have been raised by the respondents, if any
irregularity, not the petitioners.