ROSEMARIE L. HSIEH v. ATTY. SALVADOR QUIMPO and ATTY.

NANCY QUIMPO

Rosemarie L. Hsieh, together with Pilar Cabuslay, was arrested for drug trafficking and possession of
Marijuana during a buy-bust operation within the vicinity of Manila. Hsieh’s car, a Mitsubishi Eclipse
which she boarded in going to the site of the operation was impounded by the police authorities and
she was detained at the Manila City Jail.

Hsieh secured the services of spouses Attorneys Salvador and Nancy Quimpo who represented her and
Cabuslay during the inquest and preliminary injunction of the case.

Due to insufficient of funds, Hsieh authorized them to sell the car by signing a Deed of Sale the complete
of which were left in blank. Spouses Quimpo failed to appear in her behalf, forcing her to secure the
services of another lawyer and when she demanded the return of the car, they refused claiming that it
would serve as payment for their legal services.

Hsieh later found out that the car was already registered in the name of lawyers Quimpo by virtue of the
Deed of Sale. When she was able to regain possession of the car, it was seized by the Traffic
Management and charged her with carnapping.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lawyers Salvador and Nancy Quimpo violated the Canons of Professional
Responsibility when they acquired the car from Rosemarie as a payment for their legal services

HELD:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that there was a breach of trust on the part of the
spouses. They took advantage of the fact that the Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle was already signed in
blank.

As the breach of trust reposed upon the spouses constitutes a violation of the Canon 16 of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility which reads that ―a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.‖

According to the court, although a lawyer’s lien over a client’s property in satisfaction of his lawful fees
and disbursements is recognized by the Court, the same cannot be exercised haphazardly.
BUN SIONG YAO vs. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO

FACTS:

The complainant alleged that since 1987 he retained the services of respondent as his personal lawyer;
that respondent is a stockholder and the retained counsel of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and
Solar Textile Finishing Corporation of which complainant is a majority stockholder. Complainant alleged
that the series of suits filed against him and his wife is a form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of
the confidential information which respondent obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel.
Complainant argued that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he filed several
suits not only against the complainant and the other officers of the corporation, but also against the two
corporations of which he is both a stockholder and retained counsel.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent has violated the CPR.

HELD:

We find that the professional relationship between the complainant and the respondent is more
extensive than his protestations that he only handled isolated labor cases for the complainant’s
corporations.

Respondent took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. In doing so, he
has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and
complainant’s companies for his own end. Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings
with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.8
Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool
for instigating hostility against any person—most especially against a client or former client. In sum, we
find that respondent's actuations amount to a breach of his duty to uphold good faith and fairness,
sufficient to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.

Tumbokon v. Atty. Pefianco

Facts:

According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to
10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in
an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement was reflected in a letter
dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding
receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40 million. Instead, the
complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the
same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then
demanded the payment of his commission which the respondent ignored.

Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards
required of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and
cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also accused the respondent of engaging in
money-lending business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Pefianco is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
Lawyer’s Oath.

Held:

Respondent’s defense that forgery of the 11 August 1995 letter was belied by his 16 July 1997
admitting to have undertaken the payment of the complaint’s commission but passing on the
responsibility to the Spouses Yap. Clearly, the respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR
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 the case at bar.

Furthermore, the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The Supreme Court found credence to IBP’s
findings that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

The respondent was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 1.01, Canon 1; and Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from active practice of law for one year.

Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano

FACTS:

An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Suzette Del Mundo charging
respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.On January 8,
2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle
the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each.
In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of
Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet been filed for her. Suzette called for a conference
where she demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead
offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in
the filing of Tuparans case, to which she agreed.However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of
PhP5,000.00 thereafter, refused to communicate with her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his
Manifestation and Petition for Review,he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzettes case
as well as to account and return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of
his penalty citing the lack of intention to breach his lawyers oath; that this is his first offense; and that
his profession is the only means of his and his familys livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged
amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he
received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.Respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having
clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.when a lawyer takes a
clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to
exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but
also to the legal profession, the courts and society.

ORCINO vs GASPAR

FACTS:

Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against
several suspects in the slaying of her husband. Orcino bound herself to pay respondent legal fees
ofP20,000.00 — P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance to be paid on or
before the conclusion of the case. She was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of respondent before the
court and fiscal. Atty. Gaspar, however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at
this hearing that the court, over complainant’s objections, granted bail to all the accused. Orcino
immediately went to respondent’s residence and confronted him with his absence. Gaspar explained
that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. She asked for the records of the case saying that
she could refer them to another lawyer. Gaspar then gave her the records. Orcino never returned the
records nor did she see Gaspar. On September 18, 1991, Atty. Gaspar filed before the trial court a
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel without the consent of Orcino. The court issued an order directing
Gaspar to secure complainant’s consent to the motion and his appearance as private prosecutor shall
continue until he has secured this consent. Oricno refused to sign her conformity. Atty. Gaspar did not
appear at the hearings nor did he contact Orcino, thus she was compelled to engage the services of
another lawyer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Gaspar had the right to terminate the attorney-client relation

HELD:

The client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or without
cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is,
however, considerably restricted. An attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its conclusion. He cannot abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to
withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client’s written consent or from a
good cause. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “Sec. 26. Change of attorneys
— An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of
his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the
consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine
that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed
shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change
shall be given to the adverse party.” In the present case, Orcina did not give her written consent to
Gaspar’s withdrawal. He did not even file an application with the court for it to determine whether he
should be allowed to withdraw.