Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer, Sr. A.C. No. 6585 April 21, 2005 LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY.
LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO G. FLORES
FACTS:
The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment
case against respondent, Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave
misconduct. The respondent was found to have issued 2 orders awarding
custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission, ordered a bank to
reinstate the bank account of the said complainant, engaging in private
practice, notarizing public documents, and attending court hearings while
filling up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time. The case
was referred to the IBP and the investigating commissioner recommended
suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6 months.
ISSUE:
WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the
following alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a
government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case
against him for engaging in private practice.
RULING:
The court held on the following:
1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage
in private practice (adopting the Civil Service Commission Resolution)
subject to some conditions with indispensable requirement to secure approval
from the CHR. In the absence of such approval, the respondent is not allowed
in private practice and proved to have falsified his attendance in the DTR
while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave of absence.
2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his
practice as a notary public.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to
investigate all forms of human rights violation. They cannot try and decide
cases.
With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the court ruled to modify the
suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction.
FACTS:
Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and application of PD No. 1508
which mandates that all disputes, except those specifically cited (the dispute
between Lothar Schulz and Wilson Ong not included), between and among
residents of the same city or municipality should be brought first under the
system of barangay conciliation before recourse to the court can be allowed.
Because of respondents transgressions, his client was haled to court as part-
defendant. Respondent also refused to return petitioners money in spite of
his meager service.
HELD:
GUILTY of negligence and incompetence. SUSPENDED for (6) months.
RETURN the money of complainant with interest. STERNLY WARNED
that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
The breach of respondents sworn duty as a lawyer and of the ethical
standards he was strictly to honor and observe has been sufficiently
established. Respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence
required of every member of the Bar.
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 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent erred in not returning complainants money despite demands
after his failure to file the case and his devious act of compelling complainant
to sign a document stating that he has no financial obligation to complainant
in exchange of the return of complainants papers. This conduct violated the
following Canon:
CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS,
AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
HIS CLIENT.
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of client when
due or upon demand.
The failure of an attorney to return the clients money upon demand gives
rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the
prejudice and violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It is not only
a gross violation of the general morality as well as of professional ethics; it
also impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment. In short, it is settled that the unjustified withholding of money
belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.
A lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients,
with integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his
clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and
fairness.
that it was only filed to spite him and is just a mere scheme to threaten him
and to ensure that Risma and Narido has an edge over the labor case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where
it was recommended that both administrative cases are not well merited.
In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios affidavit is perjured. Or if even so,
there is no showing that Linsangan was in bad faith for it was not proven that
he has the intention of misleading the court.
In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he instigated
Narido. It was Rismas zeal in protecting his clients interest that made him
to convince Narido to file an administrative case against Linsangan. There
was no bad faith on the part of Risma. He even advanced the expenses
because Narido is indigent.

HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that
Flora Narido vs Atty. Jaime Linsangan he shall collect 15% from whatever amount they shall collect from De Dios
as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the
58 SCRA 85 Legal Ethics Mutual Bickering Between Opposing Counsels Workmens Compensation Act, hes only allowed to collect a maximum of
10%. Hes advised to keep abreast of said law.
FACTS:
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma represented
Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer Vergel De Dios, the
client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the proceedings in the trial court,
Atty. Risma vehemently opposed the submission of a certain affidavit
executed by De Dios because, in the belief of Risma, said affidavit is
perjured. He threatened Atty. Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in
court, they shall file a disbarment case against him. The affidavit was filed
and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative case against Linsangan.

Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate administrative case against

Risma where he accused Risma of instigating his client to file an
administrative case against him; that said administrative case is groundless;
Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio

FACTS:
Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris
Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is
having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom
they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted tohim
about the relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui
to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail.
According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When
respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with
children to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China.
Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their
relationship. When respondent knew of the realstatus of Carlos Ui, she
stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos
Uinever lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to
gradually accept thesituation. Respondent however presented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.

HELD:
The practice of law is a privilege.A bar candidate does not have the right to
enjoy thepractice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can berevoked, subject to the mandate of
due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal
ethics.one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possessgood moral character.More importantly, possession of good
moral character must be continuous asa requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is aground for the
revocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly
immoral conduct,or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude". A member of the bar shouldhave moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was notproven to have
conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case is dismissed.
But sheis reprimanded and given a stern warning with regards to the of her
marriage contract with aninculcated date.