1

1. Virginia Villaflores v. Atty. Sinamar E. Limos, 538 SCRA 140

Facts:

Villaflores filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Limos with charging the
latter with gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

Complainant Villaflores is a defendant in civil case no. 1218 – BG entitled, “Spouses

Sanchez represented by Judith Medina VS. Spouses Villaflores, filed before the RTC
of Bauang, La Union Branch 33.

By receiving unfavorable judgment, Villaflores sought the help of the Public

Attorney’s Office to appeal her case to the Court of Appeals. The PAO filed for her a
Notice of Appeal with the RTC.

On September 1, 2004, Villaflores received a copy of a notice from the CA requiring

her to file her appellant’s brief within 45 days from the receipt thereof. Immediately
thereafter, Villaflores approached Atty. Limos who previously handled her son’s case,
to file her behalf the required appellants brief. The respondent agreed to handle her
appeal and she handed Atty. Limos the amount of Php. 10,000.00 as partial payment
for his acceptance fee of Php. 20,000.00 together with the entire records of the case.
The following day, Villaflores paid the balance of the acceptance fee and it is
received and duly acknowledge by Atty. Limos.

On September 21, 2004, an employment contract was executed between Villaflores

and Atty. Limos whereby the former formally engaged the latter’s professional
services.

On January 14, 2005, Villaflores received a copy of a Resolution dated January 6,

2005 issued by the Court of Appeals dismissing her appeal for failure to file her
appellant’s brief within the reglementary period. Following day, Villaflores went to
Atty. Limos office but failed to see him.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Limos is guilty of inexcusable negligence in handling his

complainant’s case as would warrant disciplinary action.

Rulling:

The failure of Atty. Limos to file the appellants brief for complainant within the
reglementary period constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. An Attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to
2

the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed
committed a serious lapse in duty owed by him to his client as well as to the court
not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of Justice. Atty. Limos
is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and
ordered by the court to return the amount which he received from Villaflores.

2. Julio D. Enriquez, Sr. – Representing the law firm of Enriquez and Enriquez
v. Hon. Pedro M. Gimenez, in his capacity as Auditor General of the
Philippines, G.R. No. L-12817, April 19, 1960

Facts:

This petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 327 for a review of decision of the Auditor General on June
24, 1957.

On June 2, 1956, Mayor of Bauan, Batangas wrote a letter to complainant Enriguez,

Sr. engaging his services as counsel for the municipality in its contemplated action
against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority. This is after when the
provincial fiscal of the municipality decline to represent such an action to brought
against National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority to test the validity and
constitutionality of the act creating it. On June 28, 1956, Enriguez, Sr. accepted the
offer and filed the necessary complaint in the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
Enriquez requested a reimbursement of Php. 40.00 for docket fee and Php. 500.00 as
initial attorney’s fee. On June 24, 1957, the Auditor General disallowed and audit
Enriquez claim for attorney’s fee but no objection to the refund of docket fee.

Issue:

Whether or not the Auditor General was correct to disallow in audit the petitioner’s
claim for payment of Attorney’s fees.

Rulling:

Yes, the Auditor General was correct in disallowing in audit the petitioner’s claim for
payment of attorney’s fees, because the services of the petitioner having engaged by
the municipal council and mayor was without authority of the law. Instead of
engaging the services of a special attorney, the municipal council should have
requested the Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting fiscal place of the provincial
fiscal who had declined to handle and prosecute its case in court, pursuant to
Section 29 of the Revised Administrative Code. In the present case, the secretary of
justice had, on several occasions, upheld the validity and constitutionality of
3

Republic Act. No. 1383 does not exempt the municipal council of Bauan from
requesting the Secretary of Justice to detail a provincial fiscal to prosecute its case.

3. Rufina Bautista v. Atty. Benjamin O. Barrios, A.M. No. 258, December 21,
1963

Facts:

Petitioner, Rufina Bautista filed a complaint against Atty. Barrios for committed
malpractice in that having drafted a deed of partition at her request. Bautista
engaged the services of Atty. Barrios to draft and prepared an extra-judicial partition
between Bautista and her brothers and sisters and Federico Rovero on the other
side. Rovero refused to comply with the terms of the deed. Bautista sued him.
Instead of representing Bautista, Atty. Barrios instead appeared for Rovero. Atty.
Barrios defense to clear himself, is that it was Rovero who engaged his services in
preparing the deed not Bautista.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Barrios may handle the case between Bautista and Rovero.

Rulling:

Atty. Barrios cannot handle the case. When Rufina Bautista approached Atty. Barrios
to enforce the deed, then Atty. Barrios did not inform her that he was already
representing Federico Rovero. Supposing that Atty. Barrios was indeed representing
both of them, he could not appear for one as against another, as grounds for conflict
of interest. Atty. Barrios suspended for 2 years.

4. Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.

151800-12, April 12, 2005

Facts:

In 1991, PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza because of his participation in

the liquidation of Genbank and now is Allied Bank. Genbank is one of the properties
that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from Lucio Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule
6.03 of the CPR. Sandiganbayan denied the said motion, according to them;
Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the Central
Bank, and Mendoza’s appearance as counsel was beyond prohibitory period since he
resigned.
4

Issue:

Whether or not Mendoza violates Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Rulling:

No. this rule does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed. The
matter or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is advising the Central Bank
on how to proceed with Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule
6.03 of the CPR. The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely
different from the matter invoked in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group. The
intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important. The
role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.

5. Mauricio Ulep v. Legal Clinic Inc. , Bar Matter No. 553

Facts:

Mauricio Ulep avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous,

unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and as a member of the legal
profession; he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. Legal Clinic, Inc.,
Admits the fact of publication of said ads but claim that it is not engaged in the
practice of law but only rendering legal services through paralegal with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines.

Issue:

Whether or not the legal services offered by Legal Clinic, Inc. as advertised
constitutes practice of law.

Rulling:

Yes, Legal Clinic, Inc. is engaged in the practice of law, and such practice is not
allowed. Practice of law means any activity, in or out which requires application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and services. Practice of law is not limited
to the court cases or litigation conduct in court; it includes legal advice, counsel and
even preparation of legal documents or instruments such as contracts or other legal
forms. Moreover, Paralegal are trained professionals for legal services. Legal Clinic,
Inc. violates under Code of Professional Responsibility, which a lawyer cannot
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills in a
manner similar engaged in business.
5

6. Jonar Santiago v. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004

Facts:

Petitioner, Jonar Santiago filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Rafanan on the
grounds of notarizing several documents on different details failed and/or refused to
the following:

1. To make a proper notation regarding the cedula to the one who making the
affidavit, which is the affiant;
2. To enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; and
3. To make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in
the documents he notarized.

Santiago also alleged that Atty. Rafanan execute an affidavit in favor of his client and
offered that as evidence. Atty. Rafanan stood as counsel and witness of his clients.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rafanan can stand as a witness in favor of his clients.

Rulling:

Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of his client. Pursuant to the law, A lawyer is not
disqualified from being a witness except on cases pertaining to privilege
communication arising from attorney-client relationship.

7. Josefina M. Aninon v. Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, A.C. No. 5098, April 11,
2012

Facts:

Complainant filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Sabitsana on the grounds of
violating the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information received from his
client, and violating the prohibition on representing conflicting interest. Aninon
complaint that she was previously engaged legal services to Atty. Sabitsana in the
preparation and execution of a deed of sale favor to her over a parcel of land owned
by her late common-law husband. She alleged that Atty. Sabitsana violate her
confidence when he subsequently file a case against her for the annulment of the
said deed of sale in behalf of Zenaida Canete, which is the legal wife of her common-
law husband. She accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he
obtained from her in filling the case. Atty. Sabitsana admitted that he give advises to
the complainant in the preparation and execution of the deed of sale but denied
6

having received any confidential information from her. He also asserted that the
complaint was instigated by Atty. Velasquez, the notary of the disbarment complaint
who lost court case against him.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting

interest.

Rulling:

Yes, Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interest. The
Attorney-Client Relationship should be imbued with the highest level of trust and
confidence. 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
dealings and transactions with the client. It is a duty of the layer to avoid
representing conflicting interest, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts

8. Rogelio Santos v. Atty. Rodolfo C. Beltran, A.C. No. 5858, December 11,
2003

Facts:

Rogelio Santos filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Beltran on the ground
of misconduct and malpractice. Spouses Santos had ten children, and Rogelio Santos
is one of them. After the death of his father, his mother donated the two residential
lots located at Malabon, Metro Manila for the nine children except him, and Atty.
Beltran was the one who notarized the Deed of Donation. When her mother died,
Complainant and his brother appointed as administrator of the estate. Complainant
filed a complaint against respondent before the IBP alleging that the respondent did
not notarized the deed of donation personally with him and his siblings. Respondent
denied the allegations. The complainant further alleged that respondent appeared as
private prosecutor in criminal case no. 73560 for falsification of public document,
which he filed against Renato and Benito without being engaged by him or
authorized by court. Again, the respondent denied the allegations. He confirmed the
due execution of the Deed of Donation and submitted in support thereof the
affidavit executed by his secretary of his law office. Respondent admitted having
represented the civil case of Santos-Crawford for ejectment. He emphasized that the
7

decision in that case had long been executed, thus the attorney-client relationship
between him and the said client was also terminated.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Beltran violates the Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilty.

Rulling:

Yes, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. There is a 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 duty of the lawyer to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential communication has been confided but
also those confidences has been bestowed or will be used. 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.

9. Leticia Gonzales v. Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, A.C. No. 6836, January 23,
2006

Facts:

Complainant filed a complaint against Atty. Cabucana for disbarment for

representing conflicting interest. Complainant file a petition before the IBP alleging
that she was the complainant of the case for sum of money and damages where she
was represented by the law firm of De Guzman and Cabucana Law firm, with Atty.
Edmar Cabucana as an associate of the said firm was the one handling the case for
her. Respondent denied that he never appeared and represented the complainant.
He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife as no other
counsel was willing to take their case. He entered his appearance in good faith and
opted to represent the spouses rather than leave them defenseless. When
Gatchecos asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the cases filed against them
by Gonzales were merely instigated by a high ranking official who wanted to get
even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of the said official in another case.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violates of RULE 15.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.
8

Rulling:

Yes, respondent violates Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. The lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such
prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy that the nature of the
lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence with the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client confidence but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing so that the litigants is
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is the importance of the
administration of justice. The court considered the fact as mitigating circumstances,
that Gatchecos spouses pro bono case and that it was his firm and not respondent
personally handled the case, and he was observe good faith and no malice of the
acceptance.

10. Angel L. Bautista v. Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625, February 12,
1990

Facts:

Angel Bautista filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ramon Gonzales on the
ground of malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violations of lawyer’s oath.
Respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking the court to order the
complainant to amend his complaint by making his chargers more definite. The court
granted the respondent motion and required complainant to file an amended
complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint on disbarment on the
following grounds:

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro

Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property
in litigation.
2. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract
with him on August 30,1971 for the development into a residential
subdivision of the land, claiming that he acquired 50% interest as attorney’s
fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971 by the provincial shereiff of
Lanao del norte and registered with the RD of Iligan City.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violates Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics

and committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.
9

Rulling:

Yes, Atty. Gonzales violates the canon 42 and was suspended from practice of law for
six months. The court finds that the agreement entered into between Atty. Gonzales
and Fortunados is contrary to Canon 42, which provides that a lawyer may not
properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigations. Although a
lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be
subject for reimbursement. Their agreement however does not provide
reimbursement of the litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an
attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is
champertous; such agreements are against public policy. The execution of these
contracts violates fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client.

11. In Re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory. Of Guam of
Atty. Leon G. Maquerra

Facts:

The District Court of Guam informed the Supreme Court of the 2 year suspension of
Atty. Maquerra from the practice of law in Guam. The IBP sent Atty. Maquerra a
notice of hearing requiring him to appear before the IBP’s commission on bar
discipline but the notice was returned unserved because of the unknown address of
him. Atty. Maquerra was suspended in Guam for misconduct as he acquired his
client property as payment for his legal services.

Issue:

Whether or not member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from
the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction may also be disbarred or suspended in
this country for the same infraction.

Rulling:

Yes, Atty. Maquerra has not yet been to adduce evidence on his behalf, the Supreme
Court required him to show cause why he should not be suspended or disbarred for
said acts. Atty. Maquerra was suspended for 1 year or until he shall have paid his
membership dues whichever comes later.

12. Samuel B. Arnado v. Atty. Homobono A. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834, August 28,
2015

Facts:

On March 15, 2013, Atty. Samuel B. Arnado (complainant) called the attention of this
Court to the practice of respondent of indicating MCLE application for exemption
10

under process" in his pleadings filed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and MCLE
Application for Exemption for Reconsideration in a pleading filed in 2012.
Complainant informed the Court that he inquired from the MCLE Office about the
status of respondent's compliance. On August 14, 2013, in its Evaluation, Report and
Recommendation the MCLE Governing Board, through retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, MCLE Chairman, informed the Court that
respondent applied for exemption for the First and Second Compliance Periods
covering 15 April 2001 to 14 April 2004 and 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007,
respectively, on the ground of expertise in law under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter
No. 850. The MCLE Governing Board denied the request.

Issues:

Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for his failure to comply
with the MCLE requirements.

Ruling:

Yes, Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the IBP to undergo continuing legal
education "to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of
the practice of law. The First Compliance Period was from 15 April 2001 to 14 April
2004; the Second Compliance Period was from 15 April 2004 to 14 April 2007; and
the Third Compliance Period was from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010. Complainant's
letter covered respondent's pleadings... filed in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 which
means respondent also failed to comply with the MCLE requirements for the Fourth
Compliance Period from 15 April 2010 to 14 April 2013.

13. Elibena A. Cabiles v. Atty. Leandro S. Cedo, A.C. No. 10245, August 16, 2017

Facts:

Complainant Cabiles filed administrative complaint before the IBP seeking

disbarment of Atty. Leandro Cedo for neglecting the two cases she referred to him to
handle. Complainant content that she engaged the services of respondent lawyer to
handle an illegal dismissal case where the respondent is Elibena’s business partners.
Respondent lawyer was paid for drafting the respondent position paper and paid
2,000 for every appearance in NLRC hearings. Cabiles claimed that despite payment
of his professional fees, Atty. Cedo did not exert any effort to seasonably file her
complaint for unjust vexation before the city prosecutor’s office and dismissed her
complaint for unjust vexation on the ground of prescription. The IBP’s investigating
commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of having violated Canons 5, 17 and 18
11

of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommend his suspension for two
years.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Cedo violated Canons 5,17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilty.

Rulling:

Yes, Atty. Cedo violated Canon 5, 17 and 18 of the CPR.

Violation in Canon 5,

Bar matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an
additional requirement enable them to practice of law to ensure that throughout
their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance standards of the practice of law. Non-compliance with
the MCLE requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member.
In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed in the
said labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance
for the Third Compliance Period, i.e., from April 15, 2007 to April 14, 2010,
considering that NLRC NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08 had been pending in 2009. In
fact, upon checking with the MCLE Office, Elibena discovered that respondent lawyer
had failed to comply with the three MCLE compliance periods. For this reason, there
is no doubt that respondent lawyer violated Canon 5, which reads:

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE

IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE
HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF
LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

Violation of Canons 17 and 18 and Rule 18.03

The circumstances of this case indicated that respondent lawyer was guilty of gross
negligence for failing to exert his utmost best in prosecuting and in defending the
interest of his client. Hence, he is guilty of the following:

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.
12

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Furthermore, respondent lawyer's act of receiving an acceptance fee for legal

services, only to subsequently fail to render such service at the appropriate time,
was a clear violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent lawyer did not diligently and fully attend to the cases that he accepted,
although he had been fully compensated for them. First off, respondent lawyer
never successfully refuted Elibena's claim that he was paid in advance his Php2,
000.00 appearance fees on March 21, 2009 for the scheduled hearing of the labor
case on March 26, 2009, during which he was absent. Furthermore, although
respondent lawyer had already received the sum of Php45, 000.00 to file an unjust
vexation case, he failed to promptly file the appropriate complaint therefor with the
City Prosecutor's Office, in consequence of which the crime prescribed, resulting in
the dismissal of the case. A lawyer is expected to exert his best efforts and utmost
ability to protect and defend his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed
to his client likewise serves the ends of justice. However, in the two cases for which
he was duly compensated, respondent lawyer was grossly remiss in his duties as
counsel. He exhibited lack of professionalism, even indifference, in the defense and
protection of Elibena's rights which resulted in her losing the two cases.