DOLORES C. BELLEZA, vs ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA, A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009 ANTERO M. SISON, JR.
ANTERO M. SISON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.
Facts:
Chua, friend of Dolores referred Atty. Macasa, for legal services in connection with the arrest of her
son for Violation of RA 9165. Atty. Macasa agreed to handle the case for P30,000.00. Dolores made 3
partial payments on different occasions and P18,000 purpose of posting a bond to secure the liberty
of his son, however no receipt was issued by Atty. Macasa. Dolores found out that Atty. Macasa did
not remit the amount to the court supposed to be intended for the provisional liberty of her son. She
demanded the return of P18,000 several times but respondent ignored her. Moreover, Atty. Macasa
failed to act on the case of complainants son and complainant was forced to avail the services of a
PAO lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Macasa grossly neglected his duties for the cause of his client.
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainants son. A lawyer
who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills
and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him,
constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the
rules of law legally applied.
A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve
his client with competence and diligence. [17] He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from
such relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following
representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability other lawyers
similarly situated possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the
litigation entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use of his skill
and in the application of his knowledge to his clients cause; and that he will take all steps necessary
to adequately safeguard his clients interest.[18]
A lawyers negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of
counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a
litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a
lawyers lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical. [19]
In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainants son and receiving his
attorneys fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal
assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on
account of respondents continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the
Public Attorneys Office. Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainants son was
reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his constitutional
right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to
secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latters constitutional right
to bail.
A.C. No. 10910 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594], January 19, 2016
1
Facts:
Sison charged respondent Atty. Camacho with violation of the CPR for dishonestly entering into a
compromise agreement without authorization and for failure to render an accounting of funds
supposed to be paid as additional docket fees.
Atty. Camacho was the counsel of Marsman in an insurance claim against Paramount Life and General
Insurance. He proposed to increase their claim against the said insurance company and require
additional docket fees. The money for the payment of additional docket fees was given to Atty.
Camacho who promised to issue a receipt. Atty. Sison discovered that RTC had rendered a decision in
favor of MDAHI granting its insurance claim plus interests on May 26, 2011. However, on August 11,
2011, Atty. Camacho sent a letter to MDAHI recommending a settlement with Paramount Insurance.
MDAHI refused to offer a compromise. Even without the written conformity, Atty. Camacho, entered
into a compromise agreement.
Atty. Camacho denied all allegations against him and stressed that he had the authority to enter into
the compromise agreement, and that the docket fees given to him by MDAHI formed part of his attys
fees.
Issue: WON Atty. Camacho has authority to enter a compromise agreement in behalf of his client.
Ruling:
Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all their
dealings. Members of the Bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to delay no
man for money or malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients
considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship
In the practice of law, lawyers constantly formulate compromise agreements for the benefit of their
clients. Article 1878 of the Civil Code provides that " [s]pecial powers of attorney are necessary in the
following cases: xxx (3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to
appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription
already acquired xxx."
In line with the fiduciary duty of the Members of the Bar, Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
specifies a stringent requirement with respect to compromise agreements, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. - Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any
case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters
of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their
client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in
cash.
Glaringly, despite the lack of a written special authority, Atty. Camacho agreed to a lower judgment
award on behalf of his client and filed a satisfaction of judgment before the RTC. The said pleading The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels acts, including even
also failed to bear the conformity of his client.24 Although MDAHI subsequently received the payment
of P15M from Paramount Insurance, it does not erase Atty. Camacho's transgression in reaching the mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. [2] The rationale for the rule is that a counsel,
compromise agreement without the prior consent of his client.
once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to

the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or

PETER BEJARASCO, JR., G.R. No. 159781 omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as

the act or omission of the client himself. [3] A recognized exception to the rule is when the
- versus -
reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For
February 2, 2011
the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
clients own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in

respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in
Facts:
this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.
Bejarasco was convicted for grave threats and grave oral defamation in the MTC in Sibonga,

Cebu. RTC Argao Cebu affirmed the conviction. Petitioner represented by Atty. Besario filed a motion
Here, the petitioner took nearly 16 months from the issuance of the entry of
for extension to file his petition for review and was granted by the CA. Instead of filing his petition
judgment by the CA, and almost 22 months from when the RTC affirmed the convictions
within the period, Besario sought another extension, but still failed to file the petition for review.
before he actually filed his petition for review in the CA. He ought to have been sooner
Thus, the CA dismissed the petition for review. The dismissal became final and executory and the
alerted about his dire situation by the fact that an unreasonably long time had lapsed since
entry of judgment was made. Thereafter, MTC issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
the RTC had handed down its dismissal of his appeal without Atty. Besario having updated

him on the developments, including showing to him a copy of the expected petition for
Issue: Whether the negligent act of the lawyer binds his client.
review.

Ruling: EMMA V. DE JUAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III, respondent.

Facts:

Atty. Besario was negligent in handling the case was clear.

Emma de Juan, former client of Atty. Baria, charged him with negligence in
handling her labor case and threats against her person.

Nonetheless, we find no justification to reverse the CAs disposition of the appeal.

She alleged that Atty. Baria negligently failed to file motion reconsideration of the
The petitioner was bound by Atty. Besarios negligence. decision of NLRC in her behalf. Atty. Baria represented complainant on a contingency fee
agreement. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the complained, NLRC reversed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. De Juan blamed Atty. Baria of the reversal order because
she came to know of such reversal only when she called the respondent.

2
 Atty. Baria explained that soon after passing the bar he was employed as broadcaster of DWANs
radio program offering free legal services to the poor. He gave free legal services to indigent and one
of it is Emma de Juan. As a practice, he said he forewarned his clients that he was just a new lawyer
and that they should not expect too much from him because of his limited legal experience. And that
he advised the client to get a more experienced lawyer for her appeal because as a new lawyer he
was not confident he could handle her appeal.Thereafter, complainant no longer contacted him and at
some time, he even had to ask her whereabouts from her relatives. Respondent asserts that he has
not committed any breach of his oath and that he has vigorously pursued his clients cause to the
end. He avers that it was his clients own negligence and folly that caused her to lose her case. He
asks that the complaint be dismissed.
Issue:
whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainant a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC.
Ruling:
. the appeal. Rabanal alleged that he has paid the respondent attorneys fees and an amount for the
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once
he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him. [11] Further, among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination,
that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and
withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.[12] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client. [13] This means that his client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he
may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. [14]
The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration of the
NLRC such that the said decision eventually had become final and executory. Respondent does not
refute this. His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for reconsideration is lame and
unacceptable. After complainant had expressed an interest to file a motion for reconsideration, it was
incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize himself with the procedural
rules for a motion for reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a complicated legal
task.
We are however, not unaware that respondent had been forthright and candid with his client
when he warned her of his lack of experience as a new lawyer. We are also not unaware that he had
advised complainant to get a new lawyer. However, his candor cannot absolve him. As already
stressed by this Court:
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who
acquires his service is entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion to his
clients cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he
should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer
should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will
render him liable for disciplinary action.[15]
Again, the Court held in the case of Santos v. Lazaro,[16] that Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility[17] explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal
matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.
3
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains
counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot just
do so and leave his client out in the cold. An attorney may only retire from the case either by a
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 attorney is recorded in the case. [18] Respondent
did not comply with these obligations.
.
SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL, vs. ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE,
Facts:
Cayetano Rabanal, one of the accused was found guilty of homicide and the case was appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Rabanal terminated the services of his previous counsel and engaged the services
and engaged the services of Atty. Tugade as new counsel to prosecute the appeal. However, despite
the extension of time granted to him, he failed to file the appellants brief, resulting in the dismissal of
preparation of the appellants brief. Because of this, Rabanal was prompted to seek a suspension from
the practice of law or disbarment of respondent Attorney.
Issue: WON Atty. Tugade was negligent in his duties as counsel of the complainant.
Ruling:
The records clearly show that respondent Atty. Faustino F. Tugade was remiss in the
performance of his duties as counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal. He was given by the Court of
Appeals an extension of time totalling 60 days within which to file the appellants brief, but he failed to
file the same.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a 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. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally
applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar,
and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession. [23]
A.C. No. 7766 August 5, 2014
JOSE ALLAN TAN, vs.
PEDRO S. DIAMANTE,
FACTS:
Jose Allan Tan secured the services of Atty. Diamante to pursue a case for partition of property. The
case was then filed before RTC of Bacolod City. The complaint was dismissed by RTC for lack of cause
of action and insufficiency of evidence. Respondent was notified of such dismissal but complainant
learned the same only when he visited his office. Atty. Diamante even asked payment for the filing of
notice of appeal. RTC dismissed complainants appeal for having been filed beyond the reglementary
period provided for by law. Respondent did not disclose such fact instead showed him an Order
directing him the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove his filiation. When complainant
go to the court to request an extension for its submission, he discovered that the said Order was
spurious and the case was long been dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed the instant administrative
complaint for disbarment against respondent.
Issue: whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
Ruling:
Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyers duty to keep his client constantly updated
on the developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the latters confidence, to wit:
-versus-
ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG,
August 23, 2007
FACTS:
Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal
actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. Ramos said that she tried to attend the
scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to
enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. Thereafter, he would just inform her that the
hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. After six consecutive postponements, the complainant
became suspicious, and personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Bian
and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case against the
Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). [5]

CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Respondent alleged that Ramos know that he was in the government service from the start because
he first met Ramos when he was still a district attorney in the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (now
PAO).
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within
a reasonable time to clients request for information. Issue:

As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important
information he may have acquired affecting his clients case. He should notify his client of any adverse
decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client
informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and
confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is
defending the clients interests.22 In this connection, the lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his
actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Concomitantly, the lawyer is
expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with
him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also
a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause. 23
In the case at bar, records reveal that as of August 14, 2007, respondent already knew of the
dismissal of complainants partition case before the RTC. Despite this fact, he never bothered to
inform complainant of such dismissal as the latter only knew of the same on August 24, 2007 when
he visited the formers office. To add insult to injury, respondent was inexcusably negligent in filing
complainants appeal only on September 12, 2007, or way beyond the reglementary period therefor,
thus resulting in its outright dismissal. Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and
diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of
professional employment.24
Ruling:
Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. [23] More specifically,
lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are
subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe
utmost fidelity to public service.[24]
Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For
this reason, the private practice of profession is prohibited. Thus, lawyers in government service
cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their
respective offices.
Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required of
all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high
standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened
with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice. [32]
As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant
as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. [29] Respondent violated the prohibition against
accepting legal fees other than his salary.

DIANA RAMOS, A. C. No. 6788

(Formerly, CBD 382)

4
A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016
NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS
FACTS:
Sanchez sought the legal services of Atty. Aguilos to represent her in the annulment case. Atty.
Aguilos accepted the engagement and fixed the attorneys fees. Sanchez had given him an initial
amount but Aguilos said he would just start working the case upon full payment of the acceptance fee
and that the amount he had given for acceptance fee was for legal separation, he said he did not
know that the complainant contemplated to file an annulment. Aguilos told her that she have to pay a
higher acceptance fee for the annulment of marriage. Because of this, complainant subsequently
withdraw the case and requested for a refund of the amounts already paid. Respondent refused to do
the same as he had already working on the case. This made her bring an administrative complaint
against Atty. Aguilos.
Issue: WON the respondent is should be held administratively liable for misconduct
Ruling:
Lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments and participate in continuing legal
education program (Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) in order to prevent repetition
of such kind of advise that respondent gave to the complainant. In giving an advise, he should be
able to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and grounds for annulment of marriage.
But as the respondent stated in his answer, it appears that he is mixed up with the basic provisions of
the law.
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the grounds
for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have been basic and
expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either causes of action. His
explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for legal separation should be
disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties and for which his services was
engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the complainant's marriage with her husband
with the intention of marrying her British fiancee. They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for
legal separation would still render her incapacitated to re-marry. That the respondent was insisting in
his answer that he had prepared a petition for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as
attorney's fees if she desired to have the action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension
other than to serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.
A.C. No. 4103 September 7, 1995
VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and TRINIDAD
NORDISTA, vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS,
FACTS:
5
Atty. Fojas, as lawyer of the complainant failed to answer the civil complaint against them and
declared in default by the RTC. Fojas pretended that he had filed an answer to the complaint. In
consequences thereof, complainant lost the case.
Fojas admits his mistake in failing to file the complainants answer but alleges that it was cured by
filing a motion for reconsideration. He asserts that the Civil case was a losing cause. Thus, "[t]he
unfavorable judgment in the Regional Trial Court is not imputable to [his] mistake but rather
imputable to the merits of the case. The respondent then prays for the dismissal of this complaint for
utter lack of merit, since his failure to file the answer was cured and, even granting for the sake of
argument that such failure amounted to negligence, it cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension
from the practice of the law profession.
Issues: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, a would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file answer for the complainant.
Ruling:
All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence and,
more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts
deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether
he accepts it for a fee or for free.
Lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that
nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. 5 This simply
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized
by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. 6 If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with
it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A
lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. 7
FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA, A.C. No. 7298
- versus -
ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
June 25, 2007
FACTS:
 In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is charged with violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of which threatened
complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of documents.
Atty. Aparicio appeared as counsel of Grace C. Hufana in the illegal dismissal case before
NLRC. In behalf of his client, he submitted a claim for separation pay in conciliation the conciliation
conference. This was rejected by the MOF Company for being baseless. Complainant then sent notices
to Hufana to explain her absences and return to work. But, Hufana wrote a letter to complainant
reiterating his claim for separation pay. The letter also contained threat to the company. Thus, this
prompted the complainant to file an administrative complaint against the respondent.
Issue:
Ruling:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law, reminding legal practitioners that a
lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his clients success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and
ethics.[24] In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that 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.
Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or
cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to
yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyers client. [25]
Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction.
It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his client,
6
the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his
clients claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand
requiring payment within a specified period. However, the letter in this case contains more than just a
simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which
have nothing to do with his clients claim for separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to
secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are
definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
G.R. No. 218536, January 26, 2016
ROLANDO P. TOLENTINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION),
ATTY. CRISTINA T. GUIAO-GARCIA, AND HENRY MANALO, Respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Rolando P. Tolentino from the May 25, 2015 Order of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec/the Commission) in SPR (BRGY) No. 03-2015.1 Tolentino
questions the Commission's order advising the Election Officer of Tarlac City to await its resolution of
the case before implementing the writ of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Tarlac City, in Election Case No. 03-2013.
FACTS:
Tolentino and Manalo was a candidate during the 2013 barangay elections. Tolentino filed a protest
before MTCC in which he came out ahead during the revision of votes. Thus, he was proclaimed the
winner. Tolentino moved for the execution of judgment pending appeal. MTCC granted the motion for
execution but held in abeyance the issuance of writ. MTCC also gave due course of the appeal of
Manalo.
Manalo filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari, with a corresponding application for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a status quo ante order, or a writ of preliminary
injunction.
While pending appeal, MTCC issued the writ of execution.
On the same day, the COMELEC, issued a 60-day TRO prohibiting the MTCC from implementing.
When the 60-day TRO lapsed without decision of COMELEC, Tolentino wrote a request to MTCC and
COMELEC to implement the writ of execution
MTCC denied the implementation because of lack of jurisdiction. Despite the MTCCs denial, Tolentino
wrote a Final Request to the to the COMELEC City Election Office demanding the implementation of
the writ of execution pending appeal with an accompanying threat that he would file contempt
charges if immediate implementation would not take place.
Issue: WON the threat made by Tolentino to the COMELEC city Election Officer constitutes a violation
of CPR.
Ruling:
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that a lawyer represent his
client with zeal; but the same Canon provides that a lawyer's performance of his duties
towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon
requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client. Canon 15, Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon
their clients compliance with the laws and the principle of fairness. 17
For lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of
their clients defeats one of the purposes of the state -the administration of justice. While
lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of
their client's right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.18
A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent.
FACTS:
The complainants were convicted of homicide and attempted homicide before the SAndiganbayan
After their conviction, they engaged the services of Atty. Portugal to handle their case. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by Atty. Portugal which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. A second motion
for reconsideration was also filed by the respondent. Pending resolution by the Sandiganbayan,
respondent also filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. In Atty Portugals appellation,
he described the incident, as the accused who had been convicted of homicide for the salvage of
Froilan G. CAbiling and Jose M. Chua, xxx.
Issue:
Whether the used of the word salvage in respondents appellation constitutes a violation of
CPR.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the shooting
incident that the accused was engaged in. He described the incident, thus: "the accused
police officers who had been convicted of [h]omicide for the salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling
and Jose M. Chua and [a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C. Macato." 23 Rule 14.0124 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to discriminate clients as to
their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic that it is the defense counsel that actually
branded his own clients as being the culprits that "salvaged" the victims. Though he might
7
think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when
even the Sandiganbayan had not done so.
G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991
SPOUSES PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ROBERTO TELAN, and SPOUSES VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN,
FACTS:
Pedro, a retired government employee settled on a property abutting the national highway in Isabela.
When the government needed the land, he was compelled to transfer residence to other side of the
highway. The lot was en route to shrine frequented by pilgrims, he set up a vulcanizing shop and
eatery. His cousins set up also their own eatery.
His cousins, as the new owner of the lot filed a case against Pedro. Pedro and Angelina then, hired the
services of Atty. Paguiran. The lower court awarded the property on question to his cousins. Sps
Pedro wanted to appeal the case but since Atty. Paguiran was physically indisposed, Pedro asked
Ernesto Palma who represent himself as a lawyer. Palma consented and the petitioners paid his
lawyers fees.
Issue: Whether or not the representation of the petitioner by a fake lawyer amounts to a deprivation
of his right to counsel and hence a lack of due process.
Ruling:
A client is generally bound by the action of his counsel in the management of a litigation
even by the attorney's mistake or negligence in procedural technique. 22 But how can
there be negligence by the counsel in the case at bar when the "lawyer", "Atty. Palma,"
turned out to be fake? The Affidavit of the petitioner PEDRO TELAN, the sworn Petition, the
Certifications of the Bar Confidant's Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
the submitted records of Criminal Case No. 389-90 more than sufficiently establish the
existence of an Ernesto Palma who misrepresented himself as a lawyer. 23
A.C. No. 5655 January 23, 2006
VALERIANA U. DALISAY, vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR.,
FACTS:
Valeriana U. Dalisay, engaged respondents services as counsel in a case pending before the Municipal
Trial Court, Rizal. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorneys fees from complainant,
respondent never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents, but respondent refused. Upon
rendering of Decision by the MTC, respondent had known that the documents submitted by the
complainant are not official records. Respondent then filed a Sworn Affidavit against the complainant
charging her with falsifications for tampering evidence in court.
Issue: Whether a lawyer is discharged with his attorney-client relationship upon the termination of
services made by the client.
Ruling:
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment. But
once he accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving
rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. 5 From then on, he is expected to 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 devotion. 6
However, in an ironic twist of fate, respondent became the accuser of complainant. Respondent
accuses her of offering falsified documentary evidence, prompting him to file falsification cases
against her. He thus justifies his inability to render legal services to complainant.
Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal
proceeding.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted
complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he
should terminate his relationship with her.
[A.C. No. 5108. May 26, 2005]
ROSA F. MERCADO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, respondent.
DECISION
FACTS:
Mercados husband filed a civil case for annulment of marriage with the RTC Pasig City. This case
has been dismissed by the trial court. Atty. Vitriolo entered his appearance as collaborating counsel of
the complainant when the latters counsel died. It also appears that the respondent filed a criminal
action against the complainant alleging that the latter made false entries in the Certificates of Live
birth of her children.
Complainant denied the accusations of respondent against her. Complainant alleged that the
said criminal complaint for falsification of documents disclosed confidential facts and information
relating the civil case for annulment, then handled by Vitriolo as her counsel. She claims that, in filing
8
the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and confidential
lawyer-client relationship, and should be disbarred.
Respondent maintains that his filing of the criminal complaint for falsification of public
documents against complainant does not violate the rule on privileged communication between
attorney and client because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which
are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of
respondent as counsel.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Vitriolo violated the privileged communication rule.
Ruling:
In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and
confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary.
In fine, the factors are as follows:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and
it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication.
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity. [33]
Applying all these rules to the case at bar, we hold that the evidence on record fails to
substantiate complainants allegations. We note that complainant did not even specify the alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms
and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication
when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the
criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent.
She did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. The Court
cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence of facts which the complainant must prove.
Regala v Sandiganbayan GR. No. 105938 9.20.96
F: Corporation clients of petitioner consulted them regarding corporate structure and financial matters
upon which legal advice were given by petitioners. Said corporation is subject to investigation by the
PCGG involving ill gotten wealth. Petitioner refuses to provide information on fear that it may
implicate them in the very activity from which legal advice was sought from them and it may breach
the fiduciary relationship of the petitioner with their client.
I: WON fiduciary duty may be asserted by petitioner on refusal to disclose names of their clients
(privilege information)
R: SC upheld the right of petitioners to refuse disclosure of names of their clients under the pain of
breach of fiduciary relationship with their client.
As a general rule, a lawyer MAY NOT INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE:
1. The court has the right to know that the client whose privilege is sought to be protected is
flesh and blood.
 2. Privilege begins to exist only after the atty-client relationship has been established.
3. Privilege generally pertains to be the subject matter of the relationship.
4. With due process consideration, the opposing party should know his adversary.
EXCEPTION: LAWYERS MAY INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE WHEN:
1. Strong probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate the client in the
very activity for which he sought the lawyers advice.
2. Disclosure would open to civil liability of client. (present in this case)
3. Government lawyers have no case against the lawyers client unless by revealing the clients
name it would provide them the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a crime. (present in this case)
4. Relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which client seeks legal assistance.
(present in this case)
5. Nature of atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
intended to be confidential.
Old Code of Civil Procedure enacted by the Philippine Commission on August 7, 1901:Section 383 of
the Code specifically "forbids counsel, without authority of his client to reveal any communication
made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional
employment." 28 Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of Court, the attorney-client
privilege, as currently worded provides: Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases: An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view
to, professional employment, can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has
been acquired in such capacity. Further, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 20. It is the duty
of an attorney: (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the
secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except
from him or with his knowledge and approval. This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that: 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. Canon 15 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client: The lawyers owes "entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him,
save by the rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should
restrain him from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and he may
9
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind
that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law.
The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any client, violation of
law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client.
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan
PCGG want to build up their case against Eduardo Coujuanco for the anomalies in the COCO LEVY
FUNDS. PCGG wants petitioners divulge that Cojuangco indeed was a client of their firm, as well as
other information regarding Cojuangco.
Issue: Can the PCGG compel petitioners to divulge its clients name?
Held: NO.
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.C. No. 5280. March 30, 2004]
WILLIAM S. UY, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES, respondent.
Facts:
William Uy engaged the services of Atty Gonzales to prepare the petition for issuance of a
new certificate of title. Atty. Gonzales prepared the petition but was not filed in Court.
Instead, Atty. Gonzales filed a complaint against Uy for falsification of public documents.
Atty Gonzales averred that he offered to redee, the property from complainant which he
purchased his son. He paid the complainant and demanded the delivery of the title as well
as the execution of the Deed of Redemption. However, complainant failed to delivery the
said title because he has already transferred the title of the property to his children and
that it is misplaced and cannot located. TO protect his interest he offered a free assistance
to prepare the petition for lost title but the expenses will be shouldered by the
complainant.
Issue: WON atty. Gonzales violated the privilege communication rule.
Ruling:
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads:
Canon 21 A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
The alleged secrets of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-complaint.
Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his
professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and
therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which
necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way,
violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise
10
would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or
proprietary interests.
A.C. No. 6711
MA. LUISA HADJULA, July 3, 2007
- versus -
ATTY. ROCELES F. MADIANDA,
FACTS:
Complainant Hadjula and Atty. Madianda used to be friends as they both worked at BFP. Sometime in
1998, she approached Atty. Madianda for some legal advice. In the course of their conversation which
was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed personal secrets and produced copies of marriage
contract, birth cert., and baptismal cert. and he was referred to lawyer friend. Respondent refused
handling the case only after she heard her secrets. HAdjula seeks the suspension and/or disbarment
for Madiandas act of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she revealed to him.
Issue: Whether the privilege communications rule was breached by Atty. Madianda
Ruling:
The moment complainant approached the then receptive
respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship
evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer
certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among
the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information
acquired or revealed during legal consultations.
The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from possible
breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
It appears clear to us that respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing
that, in the process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on
confidentiality.
A.C. No. 10548 December 10, 2014
CAROLINE CASTANEDA JIMENEZ, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EDGAR B. FRANCISCO, Respondent.
FACTS:
Mario Crespo, otherwise known as Mark Jimenez (Jimenez), filed a complaint for estafa against
complainant.5 Jimenez alleged that he was the true and beneficial owner of the shares of stock in
Clarion Realty and Development Corporation (Clarion), which was incorporated specifically for the
purpose of purchasing a residential house located in Forbes Park, Makati City (Forbes property).
Caroline was shocked in the complaint for estafa filed by Jimenez against her. She felt even more
betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, whom she relied as her personal lawyer and
Clarions corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to file a disciplinary case
against Atty. Francisco for representing conflicting interests. According to her, she usually conferred
with Atty. Francisco regarding the legal implications of Clarions transactions. More significantly, the
principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarions property were all prepared and
drafted by Atty. Francisco or the members of his law office. 7 Atty. Francisco was the one who actively
participated in the transactions involving the sale of the Forbes property. Without admitting the truth
of the allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its execution clearly betrayed the trust and
confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this reason, complainant prayed for the disbarment of
Atty. Francisco.
Issue:
Ruling:
Rule on Conflicting Interests and
Disclosure of Privileged
Communication
With respect to Atty. Franciscos alleged representation of conflicting interests and disclosure of
privileged communication, the Court deviates from the findings of the IBP-BOG.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." 24 "The
relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the clients most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange
of information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer,
for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
withthe client. Part of the lawyers duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting
interests"25Thus, even if lucrative fees offered by prospective clients are at stake, a lawyer must
decline professional employment if the same would trigger a violation of the prohibition against
conflict of interest.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the rule on conflict of interests presupposes a lawyer-client
relationship. The purpose of the rule is precisely to protect the fiduciary nature of the ties between an
attorney and his client. Conversely, a lawyer may not be precluded from accepting and representing
other clients on the ground of conflict of interests, if the lawyer-client relationship does not exist in
favor of a party in the first place.
11
In determining whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the rule on conflict of interests, a scrutiny of
the parties submissions with the IBP reveals that the complainant failed to establish that she was a
client of Atty. Francisco.
First, complainants claim of being Atty. Franciscos client remains unsubstantiated, considering its
detailed refutation. All that the complaint alleged was that Atty. Francisco was Clarions legal counsel
and that complainant sought advice and requested documentation of several transfers of shares and
the sale of the Forbes property. This was only successful in showing that Atty. Francisco, indeed,
drafted the documents pertaining to the transaction and that he was retained as legal counsel of
Clarion. There was no detailed explanation as to how she supposedly engaged the services of Atty.
Francisco as her personal counsel and as to what and how she communicated with the latter anent
the dealings she had entered into. With the complaint lacking in this regard, the unrebutted answer
made by Atty. Francisco, accompanied with a detailed narrative of his engagement as counsel of
Jimenez and Clarion, would have to prevail.
Second, there is a stark disparity inthe amount of narrative details presented by the parties. Atty.
Franciscos claim thathe was the counsel of Clarion and Jimenez, and not of the complainant, was
clearly established in a sworn statement executed by Jimenez himself. Complainants evidence pales
in comparison with her claims of being the client of Atty. Francisco couched in general terms that
lacked particularity of circumstances.
Third, noteworthy is the fact that complainant opted not to file a reply to Atty. Franciscos answer.
This could have given her opportunity to present evidence showing their professional relationship.
She also failed to appear during the mandatory conference with the IBP-CBD without even updating
her residential address on record. Her participation in the investigation of the case apparently ended
at its filing.
In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations in the complaint by
preponderant evidence. Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. Under
Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses manner
of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts towhich they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony; (c) the witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not
mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. 27
Markedly, Atty. Francisco could have prevented his entanglement with this fiasco among the members
of Jimenezs family by taking an upfront and candid stance in dealing with Jimenezs children and
complainant. He could have been staunch in reminding the latter that his tasks were performed in his
capacity as legal counsel for Clarion and Jimenez. Be that as it may, Atty. Franciscos indiscretion
does not detract the Court from finding that the totality of evidence presented by the complainant
miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving that Atty. Francisco was her lawyer. At most, he
served as the legal counsel of Clarion and, based on the affirmation presented, of Jimenez. Suffice it
to say, complainant failed to establish that Atty. Francisco committed a violation of the rule on conflict
of interests.
Consequently, the rule on lawyer-client privilege does not apply. In Mercado v. Vitriolo, 28 the Court
elucidated on the factors essential to establish the existence of the said privilege, viz:
In fine, the factors are as follows:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is
by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication.
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged
communication even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter
declines the employment. The reason for this is to make the prospective client free to discuss
whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used
against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the prospective client.
xxx
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client
must intend the communication to be confidential.
A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between
attorney and client in confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the
information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.
Our jurisprudence on the matter rests on quiescent ground. Thus, a compromise agreement prepared
by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client and delivered to the opposing party, an offer and
counter-offer for settlement, or a document given by a client to his counsel not in his professional
capacity, are not privileged communications, the element of confidentiality not being present.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity.
The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be intended for mere information, but
for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights or obligations. The
communication must have been transmitted by a client to his attorney for the purpose of seeking
legal advice.
If the client seeks an accounting service, or business or personal assistance, and not legal advice, the
privilege does not attach to a communication disclosed for such purpose.
[Emphases supplied]
A.C. No. 10567 February 25, 2015
WILFREDO ANGLO, Complainant,
vs.
12
ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, ATTY. JOSE MA. J. CIOCON, ATTY. PHILIP Z. DABAO, ATTY.
LILY UYV ALENCIA, ATTY. JOEY P. DE LA PAZ, ATTY. CRIS G. DIONELA, ATTY. RAYMUNDO T.
PANDAN, JR.,* ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA,** and ATTY. WILFRED RAMON M.
PENALOSA, Respondents.
FACTS:
Complainant availed the services of the law firm, of which Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm,
was assigned to represent him. The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. 3
A criminal case4 for qualified theft was filed against complainant and his wife. It was represented by
the law firm, which handled complainants labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this disbarment
case against respondents.
Respondents admitted that they indeed operated as partners of a law firm, but explained that their
association is not a formal partnership, but one that is subject to certain "arrangements." Each lawyer
contributes a fixed amount every month for the maintenance of the entire office; and expenses for
cases are shouldered by each lawyer separately. As such, the lawyers do not discuss their clientele
with the other lawyers and associates. They averred that complainants labor cases were solely and
exclusively handled by Atty. Dionela and not by the entire law firm and that the qualified theft case
filed by FEVE Farms was handled by Atty. Pealosa, a new associate who had no knowledge of
complainants labor cases.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent
provisions of the CPR.
RULING:
A lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client
in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.
The law firms unethical acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to organize and
implement a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to its
handling lawyers, ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands clear of any potential conflict of
interest. As an organization of individual lawyers which, albeit engaged as a collective, assigns legal
work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference
to the conflict of interest rule.
The Court clarifies that respondents' pronounced liability is not altered by the fact that the labor cases
against complainant had long been terminated. Verily, 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 client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of
professional employment.22
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015
 JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, v. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent.
FACTS:
Gimeno alleged that she was a former client of Atty. Zaide. She engaged the services of his
law firm ZMZ Law Offices in an annulment case involving her husband and her parents-in-law. Despite
their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty Zaide appeared against her before the Ombudsman.
Thus, Zaide violated the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients interests. Atty
Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire her as her counsel.
Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate. The real counsel of
Gimeno was Atty Zaragosa, one of ZMZs partners.
Issue: Whether there was a conflicting interests when Zaide appeared as counsel against Gimeno
before the Ombudsman.
Ruling:
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion
of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.32
Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno, his
former law firm's client.
The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ.
Moreover, the case where Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different subject matter and
is not in any way connected to the complaint filed against Gimeno with the Ombudsman.
The prior case where Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide represented her family pertained to
the annulment of a land title. The case where Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno involved
complaint against Gimeno for her alleged mishandling of the funds entrusted to her, and for Gimeno's
alleged corruption as an examiner in the Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment of
title case and the Ombudsman case are totally unrelated.
More importantly, nothing in the record shows that Atty. Zaide used against Gimeno any
confidential information which he acquired while he was still their counsel in the
annulment of title case.
A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent.
13
FACTS:
PNB charged Atty. Cedo, former AVP of the Asset Mgt Group of PNB with violation of CPR by
appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with the latter, in which Cedo during his
employment with the said bank has intervened.
When Cedo was still their employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in favor of
Milagros Ong Siy. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Siy and PNB, Cedo
appeared as counsel of Mrs. Siy.
Similarly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by
complainant bank against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, respondent appeared as counsel
for Elefan.
Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management
Group, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia
Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued
between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were
represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the
Senior Partners.
Issue:Whether a lawyer can appear as counsel in a case involved with his previous employment.
Ruling:
The foregoing disquisition on conflicting interest applies with equal force and effect to
respondent in the case at bar. Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent
now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former employer
involving a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant,
in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and
conflicting interests, to wit:
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express
conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest
when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty
to another client requires him to oppose.
A.C. No. 5858. December 11, 2003]
ROGELIO R. SANTOS, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO C. BELTRAN, respondent.
FACTS:
 Atty. Beltran notarized a Deed of Donation of Sps. Filomeno and Benita, in favor of their nine
children, except Rogelio, the complainant. When Benita died, Rogelio and Alberto, his brother were
appointed as administrators. Rogelio filed a complaint against Atty. Beltran for notarizing the Deed of
Donation without the personal appearance of his siblings.
The Deed also shows that the siblings secured their CTCs 22 days after the execution of the
Deed of Donation. Complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as private prosecutor for
falsification of public document, which he filed against Renato and Benito, without being engaged by
him or authorized by the court; that respondent represented conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client, Erlinda R. Santos-
Crawford, was the plaintiff.
Issue: Whether or not there was a conflicting interests.
Ruling:
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. [19]
A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016
ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEA, Respondent.
FACTS:
Malabed charged Atty. Dela Pena with dishonesty for deliberately and repeatedly making falsehood
that misled the Court.
First, the Cert to File Action filed by Dela Pena was different from the complaint filed against his
brother. In effect, there was no Cert to File Action, which is required for filing a civil action.
Second, Malabed alleged that respondent did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the free patent,
but respondent forwarded a copy to the Court of Appeals. Complainant claimed that she could not
properly defend herself without a copy of the title. She further claimed that the title presented by
respondent was fabricated.
14
MAlabed also alleged that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the
occupants of the lot owned by his family, who previously donated a parcel of land to the Roman
Catholic Church, which deed of donation respondent notarized.
Issue: whether respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Ruling:
Complainant accuses respondent of conflict of interest when the latter allegedly notarized a
deed of donation of a parcel of land executed by complainant's family in favor of the Roman
Catholic Church. Eventually, respondent allegedly sought to litigate as counsel for the
opposing parties who are occupants in the lot owned by complainant's family.
Suffice to state that notarization is different from representation. A notary public simply
performs the notarial acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely,
acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessings, and copy
certifications. Legal representation, on the other hand, refers to the act of assisting a party
as counsel in a court action.
As regards complainant's serious accusations against respondent of conniving with Judge
Asis and conspiring with the latter to render judgments favorable to respondent's clients,
such are bare allegations, without any proof. Complainant simply narrated the outcomes of
the proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 1017, 860 and 973, which were filed by the Estrellers in
the MCTC and reversed by the RTC. Complainant conveniently failed to present any
concrete evidence proving her grave accusation of conspiracy between respondent and
Judge Asis. Moreover, charges of bias and partiality on the part of the presiding judge
should be filed against the judge, and not against the counsel allegedly favored by the
judge.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO, Adm. Case No. 6708
Complainant, (CBD Case No. 01-874)
.
A T T Y . N E S T O R A . B A M B A , Promulgated: August 25, 2005
FACTS:
Complainant was the president and managing director of Allied
Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned corporation engaged in providing
security and investigation services. She avers that she procured the legal services
of the respondent not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her
personal case. Particularly, the respondent acted as her counsel of record in an
ejectment case. After she resigned as AIB president, the respondent filed on
behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin and damages against for the purpose of
recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. This he 3. whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation

did without withdrawing as counsel of record in the ejectment case, which was to use against a former client any confidential information acquired

then still pending. [2] through their connection or previous employment.

Quiambao avers that the respondent proposed to her that she organize her The proscription against representation of conflicting interests

own security agency and that he would assist her in its organization, causing her applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the

to resign as president of AIB. The respondent indeed assisted her in the formation same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer

of another security agency, Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc., would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer

(QRMSI), with the respondent as a silent partner. 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

ISSUE: 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

Whether the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers

interests. with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided

fidelity to both clients.

Ruling:

In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent filed the

In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests replevin case on behalf of AIB he was still the counsel of record of the

when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do not sustain respondents theory

another client requires them to oppose. TEST OF CONFLICTING INTEREST: that since the ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated cases fraught

with different issues, parties, and subject matters, the prohibition is inapplicable.

1. whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously

in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-

for the other client. dealing. While the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly

2. whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the respondent

full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to

the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in present any written consent of the complainant and AIB as required under Rule

the performance of that duty. 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

15

Neither can we accept respondents plea that he was duty-bound to handle all the
cases referred to him by AIB, including the personal cases of its officers which
had no connection to its corporate affairs. That the representation of conflicting
Ruling:
It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client,
the complainant. Were it not for complainants vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case, she
would not have known that the same had already been dismissed. Respondent deliberately withheld
this fact from her, notwithstanding that she talked to him.

interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall serve his client
with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 state:
not make the prohibition inoperative. [16]
Moreover, lawyers are not obliged to act

either as an adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become their Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
client.
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 clients request for information.

Respondent breached his duty to his client when he failed to inform complainant of the status of
[A.C. No. 4724. April 30, 2003] the criminal case. His negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required of
every lawyer.[18] His infraction is rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a
resident of Quezon City and the case was filed in Bacolod City. It was precisely for this reason that
complainant engaged the services of respondent, a Bacolod-based lawyer, so that her interests in the
case may be amply protected in her absence. Respondents failure to look after his clients welfare in
GORETTI ONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOEL M. GRIJALDO, respondent. the case was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a breach of the trust and confident which was
reposed in him
FACTS:
Worse, when respondent used the money which he received from Atty. Reyes to pay for his own
Goretti Ong engaged the services of respondent, as private prosecutor against Lemuel
obligations, he violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that [a]
Sembrano and Arlene Villamil for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.[2] During one of the hearings
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
of the case, the accused offered to amicably settle their civil obligation to complainant. Complainant
accepted the offer on the condition that payment shall be made in cash. Respondents misappropriation of the money entrusted to him and his refusal to account for it to
his client despite repeated demands were competent proof of his unfitness for the confidence and
At the hearing, respondent advised complainant to wait outside the courtroom. When he came
trust reposed on him. His acts showed a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to
out, he handed to complainant cash and postdated Check drawn by counsel for the accused.
render him unworthy of public confidence. He held the money in trust for his client as settlement of
Complainant objected to the check payment and refused to settle the case, but he assured her that
the case he was handling. Upon receipt thereof, he was under obligation to immediately turn it over,
the check was drawn by a reputable lawyer. Complainant was prevailed upon by respondent into
in the absence of a showing that he had a lien over it. As a lawyer, he should have been scrupulously
signing an affidavit of desistance, but she instructed him not to file it in court until the check is
careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of
cleared.
fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.[20]
Upon presentment of the check, it was dishonored due to a stop-payment order from the
drawer. Complainant immediately informed respondent of the dishonor. Later, when complainant met
with respondent in Manila, he relayed to her that they offer to replace the check with cash. Several
weeks passed without any payment. She suggested that respondent move for a hearing of the case,
but he told her that courts are not inclined to set hearings near the Christmas season.
G.R. No. 191641, September 02, 2015
Complainant personally inquire about her case. She was surprised to learn that the same was
dismissed.[3] Apparently, respondent submitted her Affidavit of Desistance [4] and, on the basis thereof, EDMUNDO NAVAREZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. MANUEL ABROGAR III, Respondent.
the public prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the case which was granted by the court. When
complainant confronted respondent, he admitted to her that he had already received the amount of
Facts:
but he used the same to pay for his financial obligations.

Issue:

16
Edmundo Navarez hired the law office of Abrogar Valerio Maderazo and Associates Law Offices (the
Firm) through Atty. Abrogar III as collaborating counsel to Atty. Laguio in Sp. Proc. Their agreement
provided for acceptance fee of P100,000.00 on instalment basis, 2% of the total money value share of
Edmundo as co-onwer and heir of the Estata, as well as appearance fee of P2,500 per Court
hearings/administrative meetings/other meetings. On September 2, 2008, Edmundo filed a
Manifestation with the trial court that he was terminating the services of Atty. Abrogar; he also
caused the delivery to Atty. Abrogar of a check for P220,107.51, allegedly representing one-half of
7.5% of his share (P11,200,000.00) in the estate of his wife, less Atty. Abrogars cash advances.
Atty. Abrogar, in his manifestation, manifested that the RTC had already resolved the matter
favourably to Edmundo due to its issuance of the release order for Edmundo to withdraw the
amount. He also withdrew as counsel for Edmundo, effective upon appointment of an Administrator
of the estate. On September 22, 2008, Atty. Abrogar filed a Motion to Enter into the Records his
attorneys lien. On January 21, 2009. The trial court issued its Order granting the motion, directing
Edmundo to pay Atty. Abrogar as follows: to enter the Attorneys Lien in the Records; for Edmundo to
pay 7.5% of P11,196,675.05 to Atty. Abrogar, and P103,000.00 as administrative costs/expenses to
Atty. Abrogar.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC properly entered the Attorneys Lien of Atty. Abrogar in the Records of the
case.
Ruling:
An attorney has a right to be paid a fair and reasonable compensation for the services he has
rendered to a client. As a security for his fees, Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of Court grants an
attorney an equitable right to a charging lien over money judgments he has secured in litigation for
his client. For the lien to be enforceable, the attorney must have caused: (1) a statement of his claim
to be entered in the record of the case while the court has jurisdiction over the case and before the
full satisfaction of the judgment;9 and (2) a written notice of his claim to be delivered to his client and
to the adverse party.
However, the filing of the statement of the claim does not, by itself, legally determine the amount of
the claim when the client disputes the amount or claims that the amount has been paid. 10 In these
cases, both the attorney and the client have a right to be heard and to present evidence in support of
their claims.11 The proper procedure for the court is to ascertain the proper amount of the lien in a full
dress trial before it orders the registration of the charging lien. 12 The necessity of a hearing is obvious
and beyond dispute.13
In the present case, the RTC ordered the registration of Atty. Abrogar's lien without a hearing even
though the client contested the amount of the lien. The petitioner had the right to be heard and to
present evidence on the true amount of the charging lien. The RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion because it denied the petitioner his right to be heard, i.e., the right to due process.
The registration of the lien should also be distinguished from the enforcement of the lien. Registration
merely determines the birth of the lien.14 The enforcement of the lien, on the other hand, can only
take place once a final money judgment has been secured in favor of the client. The enforcement of
the lien is a claim for attorney's fees that may be prosecuted in the very action where the attorney
rendered his services or in a separate action.
Lastly, the enforcement of a charging lien can only take place after a final money judgment has been
rendered in favor of the client.17 The lien only attaches to the money judgment due to the client and is
contingent on the final determination of the main case. Until the money judgment has become final
17
and executory, enforcement of the lien is premature.
Sps San Pedro vs Atty. Mendoza
The Facts:
Spouses Nicasio and Donelita engaged the service of Atty. Mendoza to facilitate the transfer of title of
a parcel of land from Marcaida to their name. They gave him a check as payment for the transfer
taxes, as well as for professional fee. However, Mendoza failed to transfer the property in their name,
and despite repeated follow-ups, failed to return the money, hence they referred the matter to the
barangay for conciliation. They were then issued a certificate to file action. Mendoza wrote to the
spouses and promised to settle the transfer of title, but reneged on the promise. Hence, they were
forced to secure a loan to transfer the title in their name. Thus they filed an administrative case
against Isagani. On the other hand, Isagani belied the accusations of the spouses. It was the spouses
failure to submit the needed documents which prompted the delay in the transfer of title, according to
him. In addition, the spouses paid him a paltry sum for so much work involving the property; he was
also justified in impressing a retaining lien on the money since the spouses had receivables from the
spouses in the various cases he handled for them. The spouses even dared him to prove his worth as
a lawyer by doing away with the required documents in the transfer of title.
Issue: whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for failing to hold in trust the money of his clients.
RULING:
A lawyers duty under Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is clear:
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from the client.
[The lawyers] failure to return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he
has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him
by the client[2]. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondents assertion of a valid lawyers lien is also untenable. A valid retaining lien has the
following elements:
An attorneys retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements concur: (1)
lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the clients funds, documents and papers; and (3)
unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees. Further, the attorneys retaining lien is a general lien for the
balance of the account between the attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and funds
of the client which may come into the attorneys possession in the course of his employment.[3]
Respondent did not satisfy all the elements of a valid retaining lien. He did not present evidence as to
an unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees. The enumeration of cases he worked on for complainants
remains unsubstantiated. When there is no unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees, lawyers cannot
validly retain their clients funds or properties.[4] further strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus (20%) of the total area of the subject

Furthermore, assuming that respondent had proven all the requisites for a valid retaining lien, he property as additional fees for his services.
cannot appropriate for himself his clients funds without the proper accounting and notice to the
client. The rule is that when there is a disagreement, or when the client disputes the amount
claimed by the lawyer . . . the lawyer should not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the
payment of his fees. . . .[5]
Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their agreement. As a

result of complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the latter became furious and their
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, A. C. No. 6281
Complainant, Present:
relationship became sore.
PERALTA, J., Acting Chairperson,
ABAD, Issue: WON the lawyer is entitled to a retaining lien.
PEREZ,*
- versus- MENDOZA, and Ruling:
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:

September 26, 2011 An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements concur: (1)
ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO,
Respondent.
lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and papers; and

(3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees.[9] Further, the attorney's retaining lien is a general lien for

the balance of the account between the attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
funds of the client which may come into the attorney's possession in the course of his employment. [10]

FACTS:

In the present case, complainant claims that there is no such agreement for the payment of
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land located Metro Manila. In

professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the subject property and submits that their
1994, complainant initiated (LRC) Case for the registration of the aforesaid property. During the

agreement was only for the payment of the acceptance fee and the appearance fees.
course of the proceedings, complainant engaged the services of respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in

There was no proof of any agreement between the complainant and the respondent that the latter is
the said case when his original counsel, figured in a vehicular accident.

entitled to an additional professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area covered by OCT No. 0-

94. The agreement between the parties only shows that respondent will be paid the acceptance fee
Complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was to pay respondent (PhP20,000.00) as

and the appearance fees, which the respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is no unsatisfied
acceptance fee and (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. Complainant paid respondent the amounts due
claim for attorney's fees that would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Hence,
him, as evidenced by receipts. During the last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the

respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client absence a clear and justifiable claim.
additional amount of (PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would

18

A.C. No. 10681, February 03, 2015
SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION, Complainants, v. ATTY.
ELMER A. DELA ROSA, Respondent.
This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint 1 filed by complainants Spouses
Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants) against
respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa (respondent), charging him with gross misconduct for violating,
among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Facts:
Respondent served as the retained lawyer and counsel of the complainant. In this capacity,
respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among others,
the prospect of opening a pawnshop business. Said business, however, failed to
materialize.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed business venture, respondent,
called Henry to borrow the amount of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to return, with interest, five
(5) days thereafter. Henry consulted his wife, Blesilda, who, believing that respondent would be soon
returning the money, agreed to lend the aforesaid sum to respondent.
Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper containing: (a) photocopies of the
checks; and (b) an acknowledgment that he received the originals of the checks and that he agreed
to return the P2,500,000.00, plus monthly interest of five percent (5%), within five (5) days. 7 The
foregoing checks were personally encashed by respondent. 8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On the day respondent promised to return the money, he failed to pay complainants. Complainants
began demanding payment but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay soon.
ISSUE:
whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.
Ruling:
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client
unless the clients interests are fully protected.svirtuallawlibrary
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this trust and
confidence is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. 46 The rule
presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal maneuverings to
renege on his obligation.47
19
As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money from complainants who were his clients and whose
interests, by the lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust and
confidence in respondent, complainants relied solely on the formers word that he will return the
money plus interest within five (5) days. However, respondent abused the same and reneged on his
obligation, giving his previous clients the runaround up to this day. Accordingly, there is no quibble
that respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR.
A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. ZALAMEA, Petitioners, v. ATTY.
RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA, QUIZON-
VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW FIRM, Respondents.
FACTS:
(The Zalamea brothers) sought respondent Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr.'s advice on the properties
of their ailing mother, Merlinda L. Zalamea, who had a property situated at Scout Limbaga, Quezon
City under her name. When Merlinda passed away, De Guzman prepared the incorporation of the
Scout Limbaga property to Merlinda Holding Corp to incporporate Merlindas estate.
The Zalameas put up EMZEE FOODS INC., (EMZEE) a corporation engaged in lechon business, with
De Guzman providing the capital and operational funds. Sometime in 2002, Manuel Enrique informed
De Guzman about the property located at Speaker Perez St. (Speaker Perez property) which was then
under the name of Elarfoods, Inc. (Elarfoods), a corporation owned and run by the Zalamea brothers'
aunts and uncles. The property had been mortgaged to BDO and the bank foreclosed it when
ELARFOODs failed to pay. The ownership over the property was transferred in BDO's name.
Later, Manuel Enrique approached De Guzman and convinced him to help in the reacquisition of the
Speaker Perez property from BDO. De Guzman thus negotiated with BDO and was able to secure a
deal over the property. Due to lack of funds on Manuel Enrique's part, De Guzman's wife, Angel,
agreed to shoulder the downpayment in order not to lose the good opportunity, but under the
condition that the Speaker Perez property would later be transferred in the name of a new corporation
they had agreed to form, the EMZALDEK Venture Corporation, a combination of the names EMZEE
Foods, Zalamea, and Dek de Guzman. By this time, EMZEE had also relocated to Speaker Perez.
Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De Guzman turned
sour. The Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts which they had advanced for
the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers claimed sole ownership over the Speaker Perez property.
Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client's
property which was subject of litigation.
Issue:
Ruling:
Canon 16 provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession." Further, Section 3, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every
lawyer to take an oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by the Court. All of these
underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of any
provision of law by a lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act which the Court will never
countenance.6chanrobleslaw
However, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property purchased
was not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's properties or
interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession. There exists not
even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been involved in any litigation in which De
Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True, they had previously sought legal advice from De
Guzman but only on how to handle their mother's estate, which likewise did not involve the contested
property. Neither was it shown that De Guzman's law firm had taken part in any litigation involving
the Speaker Perez property.
Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually one of
business partners rather than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the
Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not by reason of a lawyer-client
relationship, for Which he could not be penalized by the Court. De Guzman and his wife are very well
allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and their conduct in this regard was not borne out to
have been attended by any undue influence, deceit, or misrepresentation.
G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013
FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO, JR., Petitioner, v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN, ARLEEN DE GUZMAN,
PHILIP RYAN DE GUZMAN, AND ROSELLA DE GUZMAN BAUTISTA, Respondents.
DECISION
FACTS:
Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman (Spouses de Guzman) engaged the legal services of Atty.
Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. (petitioner) as defense counsel in the complaint filed against them by one
Loreta A. Chong (Chong) for annulment of contract and recovery of possession with damages
involving a parcel of land in Paraaque City. Petitioners legal services commenced from the RTC and
ended up in this Court.3 Spouses de Guzman, represented by petitioner, won their case at all levels.
While the case was pending before this Court, Spouses de Guzman died in a vehicular accident.
Thereafter, they were substituted by their children, the (respondents).4
Petitioner filed the Motion to Determine Attorneys Fees 5 before the RTC. He alleged, among others,
that he had a verbal agreement with the deceased Spouses de Guzman that he would get 25% of the
market value of the subject land if the complaint filed against them by Chong would be dismissed.
Despite the fact that he had successfully represented them, respondents refused his written demand
for payment of the contracted attorneys fees. Petitioner insisted that he was entitled to an amount
equivalent to 25% percent of the value of the subject land on the basis of quantum meruit.
20
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to an amount on a verbal agreement with the deceased on the
basis of quantum merit
Ruling:
In order to resolve the issues in this case, it is necessary to discuss the two concepts of
attorneys fees ordinary and extraordinary. In its ordinary sense, it is the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. In its extraordinary
concept, it is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party
as indemnity for damages.13
The award that the court may grant to a successful party by way of attorneys fee is
an indemnity for damages sustained by him in prosecuting or defending, through counsel,
his cause in court. It may be decreed in favor of the party, not his lawyer, in any of the instances
authorized by law. On the other hand, the attorneys fee which a client pays his counsel refers
to the compensation for the latters services.
The fee as an item of damages belongs to the party litigant and not to his lawyer. It forms
part of his judgment recoveries against the losing party. The client and his lawyer may, however,
agree that whatever attorneys fee as an element of damages the court may award shall pertain to
the lawyer as his compensation or as part thereof. In such a case, the court upon proper motion may
require the losing party to pay such fee directly to the lawyer of the prevailing party.
In the case at bench, the attorneys fees being claimed by the petitioner refers to the compensation
for professional services rendered, and not as indemnity for damages. He is demanding payment from
respondents for having successfully handled the civil case filed by Chong against Spouses de Guzman.
The award of attorneys fees by the RTC in the amount of P10,000.00 in favor of Spouses de Guzman,
which was subsequently affirmed by the CA and this Court, is of no moment. The said award, made in
its extraordinary concept as indemnity for damages, forms part of the judgment recoverable against
the losing party and is to be paid directly to Spouses d3e Guzman (substituted by respondents) and
not to petitioner.
It is well settled that a claim for attorneys fees may be asserted either in the very action in
which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action.
With respect to the first situation, the remedy for recovering attorneys fees as an incident of the
main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client. Attorneys fees cannot be
determined until after the main litigation has been decided and the subject of the recovery
is at the disposition of the court. The issue over attorneys fees only arises when something has
been recovered from which the fee is to be paid.
While a claim for attorneys fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered, the
determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be
held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyers claim for attorneys fees may
arise has become final. Otherwise, the determination to be made by the courts will be
premature. Of course, a petition for attorneys fees may be filed before the judgment in
favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client.
It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that a lawyer has two options as to when to file his claim
for professional fees. Hence, private respondent was well within his rights when he made his
claim and waited for the finality of the judgment for holiday pay differential, instead of
filing it ahead of the awards complete resolution. To declare that a lawyer may file a claim
for fees in the same action only before the judgment is reviewed by a higher tribunal would
deprive him of his aforestated options and render ineffective the foregoing
pronouncements of this Court. [Emphases and underscoring supplied]
------
With respect to petitioners entitlement to the claimed attorneys fees, it is the Courts considered
view that he is deserving of it and that the amount should be based on quantum meruit.
Quantum meruit literally meaning as much as he deserves is used as basis for determining an
attorneys professional fees in the absence of an express agreement. The recovery of attorneys fees
on the basis of quantum meruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client from running away
with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment
on the part of the attorney himself. An attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable
compensation for the effort in pursuing the clients cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing
the amount of legal fees.20
Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility lists the guidelines for determining the proper
amount of attorney fees, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Rule 20.1 A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
c) The importance of the subject matter;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
d) The skill demanded;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered
case;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
21
As earlier mentioned, petitioner served as defense counsel for deceased Spouses de Guzman and
respondents for almost seventeen (17) years. The Court is certain that it was not an easy task for
petitioner to defend his clients cause for such a long period of time, considering the heavy and
demanding legal workload of petitioner which included the research and preparation of pleadings, the
gathering of documentary proof, the court appearances, and the various legal work necessary to the
defense of Spouses de Guzman. It cannot be denied that petitioner devoted much time and energy in
handling the case for respondents. Given the considerable amount of time spent, the diligent effort
exerted by petitioner, and the quality of work shown by him in ensuring the successful defense of his
clients, petitioner clearly deserves to be awarded reasonable attorneys fees for services rendered.
Justice and equity dictate that petitioner be paid his professional fee based on quantum meruit.
G.R. No. 160334 September 11, 2006
GUENTER BACH, petitioner,
vs.
ONGKIKO KALAW MANHIT & ACORDA LAW OFFICES, respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Guenter Bach engaged the services of respondent law firm Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Accorda
Law Offices to represent him in a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The parties signed a
"Fee Agreement," for the legal services to be rendered by respondent.
However, Respondent withdrew its appearance as counsel of petitioner, due to policy differences.
Respondent sent the termination billing3 for the services they rendered and billed petitioner the total
amount of P1,000,000.00 plus 2% interest for every month of delay in payment, based on the
provision for termination of services stated in their Fee Agreement, thus: xxx
It is understood that you may terminate our services at any time. In such an event, we shall
be entitled to collect fees for legal services already performed and results obtained based
on quantum meruit."4
Respondent filed with the RTC a Notice5 of Charging Lien over the properties of the spouses Bach.
ISSUE:
Whether or not under the concept of quantum meruit, the amount awarded by the trial court and CA,
is excessive, unreasonable and unreasonable.
Ruling:
The issue in this case concerns attorney's fees in the ordinary concept. Generally, the amount of
attorney's fees due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount
of the lawyer's compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney's fees is fixed on the
basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorney's services. Courts may ascertain
also if the attorney's fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. 18 In
no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to In determining a reasonable fee to be paid to respondent as compensation for their services
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides: on quantum meruit, based on the factors abovequoted, it is proper to consider all the facts
and circumstances obtaining in this case.
SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney's fees; agreement as to fees.- An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his It is undisputed that respondent firm had rendered services as counsel for the petitioners.
services, with a view to the importance of the subject - matter of the controversy, the extent
of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be
We do not find herein a situation so intricate that demands more than a careful scrutiny of the legal
bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but
matters involved. These are simply the normal duties of a lawyer that he is bound by law to render to
may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
his clients with utmost fidelity for which his client must not be burdened to pay an extra price. It
written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless
bears stressing that at the time respondent firm withdrew their appearance due to policy differences
found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. (Underscoring supplied.)
with petitioner, the case was still in its initial stage.

We have identified the circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a claim

Guided by the above yardstick and so much of the pertinent data as are extant in the records of this
for attorney's fees as follows: (1) the amount and character of the service rendered; (2) labor, time,
case and in the exercise of our sound discretion, we hold that the amount of P500,000.00 is a
and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services
reasonable and fair compensation for the legal services rendered by respondent to the petitioner.
were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the property
affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in
the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney;
(8) the results secured; and (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized that an
attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not. 19
A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016

Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerates the following factors which
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT,
should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:
JR., Respondent.

(a) the time spent and extent of services rendered or required;

DECISION

(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

BERSAMIN, J.:

(c) the importance of the subject matter;

A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness in dealing with his clients, and shall only charge
fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. He should not excessively estimate the value of his
(d) the skill demanded; professional services. In drawing up the terms of his professional engagement, he should not practice
deceit. The clients are entitled to rescind the written agreement on his professional fees if the terms
thereof contravened the true agreement of the parties.
(e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of the acceptance of the proffered
case;
FACTS:
(f) the customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to Sps. Emilio and Alicia Jacinto filed an admin case against Atty. Bangot for unjust and dishonest
which he belongs; treatment as her clients.

(g) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the A private survey team had conducted a survey Lot pursuant to the order of the Regional Trial Court,
service; Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in connection with the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title
of said lot by the owners. After conducting the perimeter survey, the survey team had tried to enter
the premises owned by them but they had prevented the team from doing so because their premises
(h) the contingency or certainty of compensation;
had already been segregated. The land had already been subdivided into nine lots and the survey
team had then desisted from proceeding with their survey of their land but had nonetheless informed
(i) the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and them that they would return another time for the survey. This forced them to consult a lawyer on the
legal remedies to prevent the intrusion on their property. 2chanrobleslaw
(j) the professional standing of the lawyer.
The complainants further averred that they had then consulted with the respondent, briefing him on
22
their concern, and delivering to him the documents pertinent to their land. After scrutinizing the
documents, he had told them that he would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify
the order for the reconstitution of the lost title.he had insinuated that one of their lots would be his
attorney's fees.They had not initially agreed to the insinuation because the lots had already been
allocated to each of their seven children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a
portion of Lot.
Respondent unilaterally prepared the document so-called Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They
had signed the MOA without knowing and reading the contents. Complainants offered to pay in cash,
to revoke the said MOA. But Bangot refused to received.He refused our offer to pay his services in
cash alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and claimed that our possession would not
be disturbed and that he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised.
Issue
Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings with the
complainants?
Ruling
We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an
attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his clients.
To begin with, the conduct of Respondent had evinced an instinctive interest in the property of
Complainants. He had the MOA executed at the same time he filed the Manifestation for Information
before the court that was hearing LRC Case. Not only that, Respondent's proposal to have a MOA
executed between him and the Complainant was meant to impress that his supposed attorney's fees
would be paid on contingent basis, however, a perusal of the MOA indicates that the payment of
Respondents' fee by way of a real property is being made immediately effective upon execution of the
agreement.
But, the most shocking of all, is the apparent inequity or disproportion between the amount of
attorney's fees (measured from the value of the property taken by Respondent) and the effort or
service already performed or still to be performed by him. The Complainants were not made parties to
the LRC case or any other case and Respondent filed a mere two-paged Manifestation for Information
in court which he did almost effortlessly. It is not clear how the court had reacted to the manifestation
but Respondent did not follow it up with [any] other action. Despite the same, Respondent stuck to
his tale that the Complainants had signed [the] MOA and despite his minimal representation of the
Complainants in court, he held on to his idea that he had taken from his clients valid title to a million
[pesos] worth of real estate in payment of his fees.
The undersigned does not see fairness and judiciousness to Respondent's treatment of his clients, 81
and 76 years old, respectively, and he need not add to his brief disquisition in this
regard.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We adopt the findings and note the insights thus expressed.
We must, therefore, highlight the following reasons why the findings and insights should be sustained.
To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the following factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1
23
of the Code of Professional Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit: (a) the time spent and the
extent of the services 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.
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged Manifestation for
Information constituted the respondent's rendition of professional services for the
complainants. Although he did claim that the filing of the Manifestation for Information had
prevented any intrusion on their property, thereby fulfilling his end of the contract, 13 the
worth of such minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when taken in the
context of the attorney's fees. The two-paged Manifestation for Information was not even
the procedural precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover, he did not
actually file the petition for certiorari as he had promised. And, lastly, he did nothing more
after filing the Manifestation for Information. He certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath
by receiving property of a substantial value from the complainants after having made them
believe that he could ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took advantage
of them who had reposed their full trust and confidence in his ability to perform the task by
virtue of his being a lawyer. Surely, the totality of the respondent's actuations inevitably
eroded public trust in the Legal Profession. On the basis of his acts and actuations, the
attorney's fees in the form of the lot he charged from them were unconscionable and
unreasonable, and should be struck down for failing to pass muster under the aforestated
guidelines.
G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015
AUGUSTO M. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. HON. ISMAEL P. CASABAR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, BRANCH 33 AND MA. ALA F. DOMINGO
AND MARGARITA IRENE F. DOMINGO, SUBSTITUTING HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ANGEL T.
DOMINGO, Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a special civil action for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, dated March 17,
2010, filed by Atty. Augusto M. Aquino (petitioner) assailing the Order dated January 11, 2010 issued
by respondent Presiding Judge Ismael P. Casabar (public respondent), in relation to Agrarian Case No.
1217-G,2 for allegedly having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
Facts:
Atty. Angel T. Domingo (now deceased) verbally contracted petitioner to represent him in Agrarian
Case on a contingency fee basis. The case was for the determination of the just compensation for the
expropriation and taking of Atty. Domingo's ricelands.
The RTC, acting as Special Agrarian Court (RTC/SAC) issued a Decision, fixing the just compensation
for Atty. Domingo's property higher than the initial DAR and the Land Bank valuation. The appellate
court affirmed in toto the SAC Decision.
Land Bank assailed the appellate court's decision and resolution before the Supreme Court via a
petition for review on certiorari . However, in a Resolution, the Court denied the same for failure to
sufficiently show any reversible error in the appellate court's decision.
Aquino then requested her to inform the Land Bank of the segregation of petitioner's thirty percent
(30%) contingent attorney's fees out of the increase of the just compensation, or thirty percent
(30%) of the total increase.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of Charging Attorney's Lien and for the Order of Payment. 4
Petitioner further executed an Affidavit5, attesting to the circumstances surrounding the legal services
he has rendered for the deceased Atty. Domingo and the successful prosecution of the Agrarian case
from the RTC/SAC through the appellate court and the Supreme Court.
Issue:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHETHER OR NOT A CHARGING (ATTORNEY'S) LIEN CAN EFFECTIVELY BE FILED ONLY BEFORE
JUDGMENT IS RENDERED.cralawred
RULING
While a claim for attorneys fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered, the
determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be
held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyers claim for attorneys fees may
arise has become final. Otherwise, the determination to be made by the courts will be premature.
Of course, a petition for attorneys fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is
satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client.
It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that a lawyer has two options as to when to file his claim
for professional fees. Hence, private respondent was well within his rights when he made his
claim and waited for the finality of the judgment for holiday pay differential, instead of
filing it ahead of the awards complete resolution. To declare that a lawyer may file a claim
for fees in the same action only before the judgment is reviewed by a higher tribunal would
deprive him of his aforestated options and render ineffective the foregoing
pronouncements of this Court.15
24
[A.C. NO. 7056 : September 13, 2006]
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. and EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Complainants, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E.
REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS:
Plus Builders Inc. filed before the (PARAD) of DAR, DARAB CASE against the tenants/farmers.
Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing that there was a monetary judgment by way of
Disturbance Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers, filed a 'Motion for Leave of Court to Allow
Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment' with a prayer to include the name of the
KALAYAAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION representing the following respondents herein above stated
in the caption of [the] pleading.' A Contract of Retainership was attached to the Motion to make KDC
represented by Respondent, [the] retained counsel on record'.
"Enraged by his defeat, Respondent filed a verified "Action to Quiet Title" before the Regional Trial
Court of Imus, Cavite praying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), among others, to deliberately
and maliciously stop the enforcement of the Decisions of the higher courts to implement the PARAD
Decision.
Respondent signed his pleading under a group of non-lawyers joining him in the practice of law as
[KDC] LEGAL SERVICES, LAW OFFICERS AND ASSOCIATES which included KDC as law partners in
violation of the Rules on the practice of law with non-lawyers. As a matter of fact, under the
Retainership Contract submitted by Respondent before the PARAD of Cavite, it was specifically
mentioned that legal fees were to be collected as counsel on record for the cooperative and
respondent. Therefore, this contract was effectively used [for] unlawful solicitation of clients in the
practice of law with non-lawyers, being the cooperative (KDC) to become "counsel on record [sic] x
xx.
Issue: WON it is proper to sign a pleading under a group of non-lawyers.
Ruling
Moreover, we agree with the finding of IBP Commissioner Espina that the silence or failure of
respondent to challenge the allegation that he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized
practice of law may be deemed an admission of the truth of the accusation. We note that
complainants successfully substantiated their claim that respondent, who held himself out as a law
partner of the "KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and Associates," was rendering legal services
together with persons not licensed to practice law. His silence on this accusation is deemed an
admission, especially because he had every chance to deny it. 21
"The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is
founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the
lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. 11 Lawyers may, thus, be
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in
client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not their private capacity.
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is
attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional
In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August
services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any
letter was belied by his July letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant's
agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary
commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law." 23
9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in
Respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of law and the case at bar.
justice. In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable for gross misconduct and is suspended from the
practice of law.24

A.C. No. 6934

[A.C. NO. 6116 - August 1, 2012]

HELEN CHANG, Complainant,
vs.
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:
Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%,
of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap
(Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition. Their agreement was reflected in a letter 2.
However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney's
fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about P 40 million. Instead, he was informed through a
letter3that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's
fees. He then demanded the payment of his commission 4 which respondent ignored.
Respondent explained that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on a 25% contingent fee basis, a nd advanced
all the expenses. He disputed the letter for being a forgery and claimed that Sps. Yap assumed to
pay complainant's commission which he clarified in his letter. He, thus, smissal of the complaint and
for the filing a baseless complaint.6rll corresponding sanction against complainant's counsel, Atty.
Florencio B. prayed for the diGonzales, for
A lawyer cannot simply withdraw from a case without notice to the client and complying with the
requirements in Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the lawyer will be held liable
for violating Canons 17 and 18 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility.
Facts:
Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty. Hidalgo as legal counsel to represent her in
several collection cases pending in various courts.4 Pursuant to the contract they executed, Chang
issued five (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo totaling 52,000.00. 5 Atty. Hidalgo also collected
9,500.00 as "hearing fee."6Chang claimed that despite receiving a total of 61,500.00, Atty. Hidalgo
did not attend any of the hearings in the collection cases and, instead, sent another lawyer without
her consent.7 The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which resulted in the dismissal of the
cases.8 Chang prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be administratively disciplined by this Court. 9
Issue:

Issue:
Ruling:

Ruling:
We find respondent remiss of his duties as complainants counsel.

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
In Layos v. Villanueva,60 this Court reiterated that a "lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his [or
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are
her] actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his [or her] client." 61
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and
25
Due to respondents withdrawal as complainants counsel for the cases, he did not anymore attend
any of the hearings. Since the withdrawal was without the conformity of complainant, new counsel
was not engaged. This necessarily resulted in the summary dismissal of the collection cases as
alleged by complainant.
Complainant could have obtained the services of another lawyer to represent her and handle her
cases with the utmost zeal and diligence expected from officers of the court. However, respondent
simply opted to withdraw from the cases without complying with the requirements under the Rules of
Court and in complete disregard of his obligations towards his client.
G.R. No. 183952 September 9, 2013
CZARINA T. MALVAR, Petitioner,
vs.
KRAFT FOOD PHILS., INC. and/or BIENVENIDO BAUTISTA, KRAFT FOODS
INTERNATIONAL, Respondents.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Although the practice of law is not a business, an attorney is entitled to be properly compensated for
the professional services rendered for the client, who is bound by her express agreement to duly
compensate the attorney. The client may not deny her attorney such just compensation.
FACTS:
Kraft Foods (Phils.), Inc. hired Czarina Malvar . But she was placed under preventive suspension and
ultimately terminated by KFPI.
Malvar filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against KFPI and Bautista in the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
A motion for intervention was filed by Retired SC AJ Bellosilo to protect attorneys right and sought
both Malvar and KFPI jointly and severally liable for Intervenors contingent fees. Petitioner engaged
the professional services of Intervenor on a contingency basis whereby they agreed in writing in
connection with her labor case.
To the Intervenors surprise, Malvar unceremoniously and without any justifiable reason terminated
its legal service and required it to withdraw from the case. The Intervenor indicated that Malvars
precipitate action had baffled, shocked and even embarrassed the Intervenor, because it had done
everything legally possible to serve and protect her interest. It added that it could not recall any
instance of conflict or misunderstanding with her, for, on the contrary, she had even commended it
for its dedication and devotion to her case through a letter. According to the Intervenor, the
compromise agreement was authored by the Respondent to evade possible loss, they saw Intervenor
26
as a major block to the compromise agreement. To remove the Intervenor, the only way is to
terminate its services as her legal counsel.
Issues
whether or not the Motion for Intervention to protect attorneys rights can prosper, and, if so, how
much could it recover as attorneys fees.
Ruling:
In the absence of the lawyers fault, consent or waiver, a client cannot deprive the lawyer
of his just fees already earned in the guise of a justifiable reason. Here, Malvar not only
downplayed the worth of the Intervenors legal service to her but also attempted to
camouflage her intent to defraud her lawyer by offering excuses that were not only
inconsistent with her actions but, most importantly, fell short of being justifiable.
The letter Malvar addressed to Retired Justice Bellosillo, who represented the Intervenor,
debunked her allegations of unsatisfactory legal service because she thereby lavishly
lauded the Intervenor for its dedication and devotion to the prosecution of her case and to
the protection of her interests. Also significant was that the attorney-client relationship
between her and the Intervenor was not severed upon Atty. Dasals appointment to public
office and Atty. Llasos resignation from the law firm. In other words, the Intervenor
remained as her counsel of record, for, as we held in Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and
Africa v. Eastern Telecommunication Philippines, Inc., 50 a client who employs a law firm
engages the entire law firm; hence, the resignation, retirement or separation from the law
firm of the handling lawyer does not terminate the relationship, because the law firm is
bound to provide a replacement.
The stipulations of the written agreement between Malvar and the Intervenors, not being
contrary to law, morals, public policy, public order or good customs, were valid and binding
on her. They expressly gave rise to the right of the Intervenor to demand compensation. In
a word, she could not simply walk away from her contractual obligations towards the
Intervenor, for Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that obligations arising from
contracts have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good
faith.
To be sure, the Intervenors withdrawal from the case neither cancelled nor terminated the written
agreement on the contingent attorneys fees. Nor did the withdrawal constitute a waiver of the
agreement. On the contrary, the agreement continued between them because the Intervenors
Manifestation (with Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Petitioner)explicitly called upon the Court to
safeguard its rights under the written agreement
27