27. RODOLFO M. YUMANG, CYNTHIA V. YUMANG AND ARLENE TABULA v. ATTY. EDWIN M. 28. Elizabeth Catolos Vs. Atty.
28. Elizabeth Catolos Vs. Atty. Teresita Capacillo A.C. No. 7950. March 13, 2019 Resolution
ALAESTANTE A.C. No. 10992, June 19, 2018 EN BANC
Facts: On January 3, 2012, respondent lawyer wrote then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary
Leila De Lima. He requested Prosecution of respondent Cynthia V. Yumang, et al., for the crimes of
syndicated Estafa, Qualified Theft and Grave Threats. Claiming that respondent lawyer's January 3,
2012 letter contained scurrilous statements intended to malign and besmirch Cynthia's reputation and
business standing, Cynthia and her husband, the complainant Rodolfo, filed a libel complaint against
respondent lawyer, Ernesto, and Danilo. City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause to indict
respondent lawyer, as well as Ernesto, and Danilo, for the crime of libel. The DOJ dismissed the
complaint for syndicated estafa, qualified theft, and grave threats filed by Ernesto and Danilo. Hence,
they complained for the disbarment of Ernesto and Danilo.
Complainants Berlin and Higino sought the services of the respondent lawyer. Higino stressed
that respondent lawyer's act of preparing their responsive pleadings in the syndicated estafa, grave
threats and qualified theft cases was violative of the proscription against lawyers representing
conflicting interests. The respondent lawyer averred that the letter was written in response to a moral
or legal duty, he being the lawyer for his clients in the cases mentioned in the letter. He denied that he
was the defense counsel for Berlin and Higino in the syndicated estafa, grave threats and qualified
theft cases. The IBP found them guilty, hence, they were suspended for 6 months from practice of law.
Respondent violated his Lawyer's Oath when he sent unsealed malicious and libelous letter against
herein Complainants without any effort to ascertain the truth thus constituted gross evident bad faith.
Issue: W/N the absence of a written contact will preclude the finding that there was a professional
relationship?
Ruling: NO. The absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that there was a
professional relationship between the parties. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent
to his profession. We are satisfied that other incontrovertible evidence supports the allegation that a
lawyer-client relationship did exist, or had been established, between respondent lawyers. A lawyer is
forbidden "from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste
as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of [impropriety] and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice
FACTS: Petitioner was the lessee of Spouses George and Marilyn Lim (Spouses Lim). Their lease
contract covered a property where petitioner's restaurant was located. However, six months after the
lease contract was executed, Spouses Lim refused to accept petitioner's tender of payment of rent.
This prompted petitioner to file a civil case for enforcement or rescission of the contract before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Respondent and her father, Atty. Alfonso Capacillo, allegedly
acted as counsels for Spouses Lim.
On June 3, 2007, petitioner claimed that respondent, accompanied by two policemen, forcibly
ejected her employees from the leased premises despite the absence of a valid court order.
Additionally, petitioner alleges that respondent, on June 6, 2007, led a team of men in removing the
signage of her restaurant, again without any court order.
These two incidents prompted petitioner to seek the disbarment of respondent before the IBP.
According to Investigating Commissioner Hababag, the lease contract has been validly
terminated by Spouses Lim and petitioner was not able to show how respondent was involved in
drafting or enforcing the lease contract. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted and
approved Investigating Commissioner Hababag' s report and recommendation.
Petitioner then filed this petition to assail the IBP’s dismissal of her disbarment complaint.
After receiving respondent's comment on the petition, we resolved to refer the case back to the IBP for
another investigation, report, and recommendation.
Issue: W/N respondent acted as counsel for spouses Lim?
Ruling: Yes. There is substantial evidence to show that, indeed, respondent acted as counsel for
Spouses Lim. Respondent has consistently denied being the legal counsel for Spouses Lim, and has
gone so far as to state that she "did not and do not participate in the affairs of the Capacillo Law
Office," the firm representing Spouses Lim which is owned and managed by respondent's father.
Records disclose, however, that all the pleadings submitted by respondent in this case were prepared
by the Capacillo Law Office. Respondent also had access to all documents, including pleadings and
letters, prepared or filed by the Capacillo Law Office on behalf of Spouses Lim.
Respondent is enjoined to represent her clients with zeal but only within the bounds of the law (Canon
19). In particular, every lawyer is required to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client (Canon 19.01). This, respondent failed to heed. By forcibly ejecting petitioner's
employees and removing the signage of petitioner's business, respondent took the law into her own
hands.
In Areola v. Mendoza, 21this Court reminded that a lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. To that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to
and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means not honorable, fair and
honest, which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is
condemnable and unethical.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Teresita Capacillo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one year, effective upon the finality of this Resolution, with a stem warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
29. EDGARDO M. MORALES, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMIRO B. BORRES, JR., respondent. Still another, complainant did not refute respondent's assertion that the latter did follow-
A.C. No. 12476. June 10, 2019. up the cases whenever he had a hearing in Tabaco City, Albay. Each time he was there though the
personnel assigned to the cases were not around.
Indeed, a disbarment complaint is not an appropriate remedy to be brought against a
Facts: Complainant alleged: Respondent agreed to assist him in filing complaints for trespass to
lawyer simply because he lost a case he handled for his client. A lawyer's acceptance of a client or
property and malicious mischief against Perla Borja, Spouses Edmundo and Marilyn Bonto, and
case is not a guarantee of victory. When a lawyer agrees to act as counsel, what is guaranteed is
Erlinda Brines. He paid respondent P25,000 as acceptance fee. Respondent only prepared three
the observance and exercise of reasonable degree of care and skill to protect the client's interests
complaints for malicious mischief which were all filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor-
and to do all acts necessary therefor.|||
Tabaco City (OCP-Tabaco City).
But once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter
In the Investigation Data Forms submitted to the OCP-Tabaco City, he indicated the
with competence and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether
residence of his brother-in-law in Tabaco City as his postal address although he was actually
he accepts it for a fee or for free. Thus, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his
residing in Quezon City.
client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.
Subsequently, respondent informed him that the cases were dismissed. He asked for
As stated, respondent here was not shown to have neglected his duty to complainant in
copies of the resolutions of dismissal, but the latter did not give him any. He and respondent then
the cases for which he was engaged as counsel. Respondent may not have won these cases, but
went together to the OCP-Tabaco City to obtain copies of these resolutions. There, they were
to reiterate, this fact alone does not equate to neglect of duty as counsel.
informed that the notices sent to his brother-in-law's residence in Tabaco City were returned
unserved. In disbarment proceedings, complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial
evidence. This means complainant must satisfactorily establish the facts upon which the charges
The OCP-Tabaco City, nonetheless, directed him to submit the necessary information on
against respondent are based.  To repeat, complainant failed to discharge this burden.
the ages of the parties sought to be charged, the date of case referral for barangay conciliation,
Consequently, respondent's right to be presumed innocent and to have regularly performed his
and copies of police/barangay blotters of the purported acts of malicious mischief on his property.
duty as officer of the court must remain in place.
In his defense, respondent countered, in the main: Although he moved his law office
Herein complainant is dismissed.
from Tabaco City to Makati City, he still managed to follow-up the status of the cases with the
OCP-Tabaco City whenever he had a hearing in the area. It was unfortunate, however, that the
personnel assigned to the cases were always not around each time he went there to
inquire. CAIHTE
He did not know that complainant indicated as the latter's postal address the Tabaco City
residence of his brother-in-law in the records of the OCP-Tabaco City. He never suppressed any
information from complainant regarding the status of the cases. In fact, as soon as he learned that
the cases got dismissed, he wasted no time and called complainant for the required information on
the ages of the parties sought to be charged. He even accompanied complainant to the OCP-
Tabaco City to secure copies of its orders and resolutions.
IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violations of Canons 17 and 18 of the  CPR  and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months.||| 
Issue: Did respondent violate Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR?
Ruling: NO. Respondent does not appear to have been engaged as complainant's counsel of
record in subject cases. This precisely was the reason why respondent himself did not receive
copies of the orders or resolutions issued in said cases. It was, therefore, unfair for complainant to
even suspect that respondent withheld these orders or resolutions from him.
For another, complainant admitted that copies of the orders or resolutions supposedly
intended for him were returned unserved because he indicated in the records of OCP-Tabaco City
not his correct address but the residence of his brother-in-law in Tabaco City.
30. Eva V. Mendoza Vs. Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal A.C. No. 9437. July 8, 2019 Mendoza then filed an administrative complaint against respondent Cristal with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP)-Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD). On August 24, 2015, the IBP, through
Facts: Mendoza had a pending suit for nullity of marriage and is estranged from her husband. She
Commissioner Eduardo Q. Ang, Jr., recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against
claims that while the case was ongoing, she was continuously harassed by her husband. In one
respondent Cristal. Commissioner Ang found that the non-filing of the petition for a protection
instance, her husband even "barged" into her home. Thus, Mendoza was constrained to seek
order "should not cause any administrative liability".
legal action and was referred by her sister to respondent Cristal.
Issue: W/N Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal LIABLE for violation of Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of
At a meeting on May 20, 2011, Mendoza agreed to engage the services of the law firm of
the CPR.
respondent Cristal. The parties agreed on payment of an acceptance fee amounting to
P150,000.00 for the following cases to be handled by the law firm: Ruling: YES! Respondent Cristal failed to serve her client with fidelity, competence, and diligence.
Based on the foregoing facts, she neglected the attorney-client relationship established between
(a) The pending nullity case of Mendoza with Civil Case No. 2007-03 7 51 RTC-85, Lipa
them. Such unprofessional behavior must be reproached.
City;
The nature of an attorney-client relationship is one which involves mutual trust and confidence of
(b) The immediate filing of a Petition for Application of Temporary Protection Order/
the highest degree. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer
Permanent Protection Order;
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence in him."
(c) The filing of a criminal complaint against Mendoza's husband for Violation of Republic Canon 18 of the same code provides that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
Act No. 92622 and Republic Act No. 7610. diligence." The attorney-client relationship demands of a lawyer absolute integrity in all of one's
dealings and transactions with the clients in order for the latter to repose confidence in an attorney.
Mendoza paid respondent Cristal P75,000.00. Despite partial payment, Mendoza claims that the The lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
much needed Court Protection Order had not been filed immediately by respondent Cristal. She defense of his client's rights xx x.
asserts that the respondent committed to file the petition within 24 hours from their meeting. She
tried to get hold of respondent Cristal numerous times but the latter did not respond. It was only In this case, the main contention of Mendoza was the lack of communication and the non-
sometime in July 2011, or over a month from their meeting, that the office of respondent Cristal attendance of respondent Cristal at the preliminary investigation before the prosecutor's office.
got in touch with Mendoza regarding the filing of the criminal complaint against the latter's Facts show that Mendoza appeared before the prosecutor's office in July 2011.
husband for violation of R.A. 9262 with the prosecutor's office in Imus, Cavite.
She was dismayed that respondent Cristal was not in attendance to assist her in filing the
Also, respondent Cristal did not personally appear in preliminary investigation and at said hearing, complaint-affidavit. In addition, the pleading to be filed at said hearing was not prepared properly
but her representative arrived and manifested that they are no longer filing a reply-affidavit. as it lacked the prayer for the issuance of the protection orders, which was one of the
considerations for engaging the services of respondent Cristal. What made Mendoza most
After learning of the incidents at the preliminary investigation, Mendoza felt that her criminal disappointed in respondent Cristal was the latter's absence at the subsequent proceedings before
complaint will be dismissed. She then sought to consult with respondent Cristal regarding her the public prosecutor.
case, but to no heed. For this reason, Mendoza, in a letter, demanded return of a portion of the
P75,000.00 paid to respondent Cristal. She also explained her loss of confidence in the services WHEREFORE, We find Attorney Ana Luz B. Cristal LIABLE for violation of Canon 17 and Canon
of the respondent lawyer. To her surprise, she received a demand letter from respondent Cristal to 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and she is hereby REPRIMANDED.
settle the remaining balance of the acceptance fee.
Respondent Cristal, for her part, posits that she had not been negligent in rendering services to
Mendoza. She claims that upon receipt of the partial payment, her law office, through an
associate, prepared the draft Petition for Application of Temporary Protection Order/ Permanent
Protection Order. However, said petition was not immediately filed because Mendoza was unable
to sign the verification page of the petition as she was out of the country.
Respondent Cristal explains that the foregoing petition was shelved, and she decided to secure
the protection order in the same complaint for violation of R.A. 9262 to be filed against Mendoza's
husband. She claims that this will be more economic and efficient. Respondent Cristal denies
Mendoza's assertion on the non-filing of the reply-affidavit with the prosecutor's office. She argues
a reply-affidavit had already been drafted and ready for its filing on the next scheduled preliminary
investigation conference.
Respondent Cristal also posits that she filed her Formal Entry of Appearance for the ongoing
nullity case of Mendoza.