Presented by

Dean Rico Paolo R. Quicho

FABUGAIS V. FAUNDO, JR. AC NO. 10145, 11 JUNE 2018

“Tito Attorney”
FABUGAIS V. FAUNDO, JR.
Ruling:
Case can proceed inspite of complainant’s death and apparent lack of interest of
complainant’s heirs. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in
nature; they are intended to look into the behavior of lawyers to determine
whether they are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal profession, and to
hold them accountable for any misconduct. Because this is chiefly or primarily
intended to administer punishment, proceedings do not call for the active service
of prosecutors.
Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar at all times and to help maintain the
respect of the community for the legal profession under all circumstances. Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
FABUGAIS V. FAUNDO, JR.
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility further provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
"There is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned
morality is more imperative than that of the law." As officers of the court, lawyers
must in fact and in truth be of good moral character. They must moreover also
be seen or appear to be of good moral character; and be seenor appear to — live
a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. Members
of the bar can ill-afford to exhibit any conduct which tends to lessen in any degree
the confidence of the public in the fidelity, the honesty, and the integrity of the
legal profession. The Courts require adherence to these lofty precepts because
any thoughtless or ill-considered actions or actuations by any member of the Bar
can irreversibly undermine public confidence in the law and, consequently, those
who practice it.
FABUGAIS V. FAUNDO, JR.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent lawyer xxx is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month reckoned
from receipt of a copy of this Decision. He is hereby WARNED to
be more careful and more circumspect in all his actions, and to
be mindful of the kind of example he holds up, especially to
impressionable young people, lest he brings himself a direr fate
the second time around.
RE CA-GR CV NO. 96282 (SPS. PARTOZA V. MONTANO
AND SOLOMON), AC NO. 11173, 11 JUNE 2018

“Lawyer ignored CA directives”

RE CA-GR CV NO. 96282 (SPS. PARTOZA V. MONTANO AND
SOLOMON)
There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with five Resolutions of the CA.
His actions were definitely contumacious. By his repeated failure, refusal or
inability to comply with the CA Resolutions, responden displayed not only
reprehensible conduct but showed utter lack of respect for the court and its
orders. Court orders are not mere requests that may be complied with partially or
selectively.
Because a lawyer is an officer of the court, called upon to assist in the administration
of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts or impededs the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action
against him.
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. In particular,
Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that it "is the duty of an
attorney [t]o observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and
judicial officers."
RE CA-GR CV NO. 96282 (SPS. PARTOZA V. MONTANO AND
SOLOMON)
In addition, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "[a]
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes." Also, Canon 11 provides that a "lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.”
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor.— A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court,or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority [to do so].The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)
RE CA-GR CV NO. 96282 (SPS. PARTOZA V. MONTANO AND
SOLOMON)
This Court, in Anudon v. Cefra citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar, held that a lawyer's
obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders not only betrayed a
recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscored his disrespect towards the
Court's lawful orders which was only too deserving of reproof.
"Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes, and this
deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof may subject the
lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as
well." In this case, respondent deliberately ignored five CA Resolutions, thereby
violating his duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts.
RE CA-GR CV NO. 96282 (SPS. PARTOZA V. MONTANO AND
SOLOMON)

In one case, the Court suspended a lawyer from practice of law for one year having
ignored twelve CA resolutions. The court found that the said lawyer’s conduct
gave the impression that he was above the duly constituted judicial authorities of
the land, and looked down on them with a patronizing and supercilious attitude.
In this case, we find the penalty of suspension for six months xxx commensurate
xxx.

WHEREFORE, respondent xxx is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely
CABILES V. ATTY. CEDO, AC NO. 10245, 16 AUGUST 2017

“Lawyer neglecting client’s cases”

CABILES V. ATTY. CEDO, AC NO. 10245, 16 AUGUST 2017

Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an
additional requirement to enable them to practice law. Non-compliance with
MCLE requirements subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member.
Respond lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed the date of issue of his MCLE
Certificate of Compliance for the Third Compliance Period. Upon checking, client
discovered that lawyer had failed to comply with the three MCLE compliance
periods.
Violation of 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 law
CABILES V. ATTY. CEDO, AC NO. 10245, 16 AUGUST 2017

Respondent lawyer was guilty of gross negligence for failing to exert his utmost best in
prosecuting and in defending the interest of his client; this, and his act of
receiving acceptance fee for legal services, only to fail to render such service at
the appropriate time, were both violations of Canons 17 and 18.
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.
CABILES V. ATTY. CEDO, AC NO. 10245, 16 AUGUST 2017

WHEREFORE, respondent xxx is hereby found GUILTY of violationg Canons 5, 17 and

18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon
receipt of this Decision, and warned that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
DATU MALANGAS V. ATTY. ZAIDE, AC NO. 10675, 31 MAY 2016
“P5 Million” damages and
lawyer’s refusal to account for funds
DATU MALANGAS V. ATTY. ZAIDE, AC NO. 10675, 31 MAY 2016

Respondent lawyer’s refusal to account for funds given to him, especially his refusal
to return the amount paid in excess of what was required as docket fees (client
having given filing fees for a P5 Million damage claim but later found out that
lawyer actually just claimed for P250,000 damage), clearly violated Rules 16.01
and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so
much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
DATU MALANGAS V. ATTY. ZAIDE, AC NO. 10675, 31 MAY 2016

By respondent lawyer’s deliberate failure to file pleadings, and by his failure to appear
at the hearings, he unduly delayed the case as the trial court had to postpone
hearings, and this naturally arrested the progress of his client’s case. These
failings are clearly offensive to Rules 18.03 and 18.04. If respondent’s clai is true
that he and complainant agreed to drop the case, then he, as an officer of the
court should have saved the court’s precious time by at least promptly
manifesting his lack of objection to the Motion to Dismiss.
Given the gravity of the offenses, and considering that this is his second
administrative case, respondent’s defense that he was a young lawyer when he
went astray, hardly merits sympathy from the court.
DATU MALANGAS V. ATTY. ZAIDE, AC NO. 10675, 31 MAY 2016

WHEREFORE, [respondent] is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
years effective immediately. [Respondent] is also ORDERED to promptly return to
complainant the sums given to him as acceptance fee and docket fees in the
amount of P70,000.00, from which should be deducted the amount of
P2,623.60, paid as docketing fees.
CAMPOS, BATAC AND CARPIO V. ATTY. ESTEBAL
AC NO. 10443, 8 AUGUST 2016

Excessive fees for US Visa Application

CAMPOS, BATAC AND CARPIO V. ATTY. ESTEBAL
AC NO. 10443, 8 AUGUST 2016
The amount individually paid by the complainants went to respondent’s pocket.
It is not even clear if the payment was made for respondent’s attorney’s fees or for the
application for US Visa. For a US Visa, an applicant only has to spend P6,157.00. Thus,
by mere mathematical computation, the amount of P200,000.00 is excessive. If it is
for payment of attorney’s fees, it is still excessive and unreasonable.
While lawyers are entitled to payment of attorney’s fees, the same should be reasonable.
Even if we base respondent’s fees on quantum meruit, the amount collected is still
excessive. Following are the requisites for justifying quantum meruit: (1) no express
contract for payment of fees; (2) although there is a formal contract, the fees
stipulated are unconscionable or unreasonable; (3) when the contract for attorney’s
fees is void due to purely formal defects of execution; (4) when the lawyer for justifiable
cause was not able to finish the case for its conclusion; (5) when the lawyer and the
client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees; (6) when the client dismissed his
lawyer before termination of the case or the latter withdrew thefrefrom for valid reason.
CAMPOS, BATAC AND CARPIO V. ATTY. ESTEBAL
AC NO. 10443, 8 AUGUST 2016
Since the amount received the respondent lawyer either as payment of attorney’s
fees or for visa application is excessive, respondent should return the money to
the complainant. Considering the degree of work and number of hours spent, the
amount he collected from the complainants is not commensurate to the degree
of services rendered. Respondent took advantage of the weakness of the
complainants in their desire to go to the United States.
However, in fairness to the respondent, he is also entitled to his attorney’s fees.
Having performed the scope of work he mentioned in his contract, the amount of
P5,000 per complainant would be reasonable payment. It is proper to deduct said
amount from each complainant as reasonable attorney’s fees.
CAMPOS, BATAC AND CARPIO V. ATTY. ESTEBAL
AC NO. 10443, 8 AUGUST 2016
ACCORDINGLY, respondent xxx is hereby found GUILTY of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year., effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is also
ordered to return the amounts to [complainants]. [He] is WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
CHUA V. ATTY. JIMENEZ, AC NO. 9880, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

“Lawyer refusing to return document due to

non-payment of retainer fee”
CHUA V. ATTY. JIMENEZ, AC NO. 9880, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

While the Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of a lawyer to have
a lien over the funds and property of his client as may be necessary to satisfy his
lawful fees, Rule 16.03 demands that “[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.” This is a reiteration of Rule
16.01 which states that “[a] lawyer shall account for all money and property
collected or received for or from the client.”
A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his
professional capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a client
for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client
showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended.
CHUA V. ATTY. JIMENEZ, AC NO. 9880, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

The respondent’s issue on the supposed non-payment of his fees should have
prompted him to seek communication with complainant and resolve such matter.
He should not have used the same as a ground for his inaction insofar as the
cases referred to him were concerned.
Neither should the said issue have been the reason for his failure to return the
documents to his client. Rule 22.02 mandates him to do so: “A lawyer who
withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn all
papers and property to which the client is entitled.
CHUA V. ATTY. JIMENEZ, AC NO. 9880, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

WHEREFORE, respondent xxx is found GUILTY of violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for six (6) months and ORDERED to return to complainant within ten (10)
days from notice all the pertinent records and documents, and the xxx total of
P165,127.00 with interest xxx. Respondent is WARNED that commission of the
same or similar infraction in the future will merit a more severe penalty.
Respondent is also directed to submit proof of his compliance within 30 days
from receipt of this Decision.
SALABAO V. ATTY. VILLARUEL, AC NO. 8084, 24 AUGUST 2015

Abuse of Court Processes

SALABAO V. ATTY. VILLARUEL, AC NO. 8084, 24 AUGUST 2015

While it is true that lawyers owe “entire devotion” to the cause of their clients, it
cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is “not to client
but to the administration of justice”.
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.”
Thus, in the use of court processes, the lawyer’s zeal to win must be tempered by the
paramount consideration that justice be done to all parties involved, and the
lawyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of execution of a valid
judgment.
Lawyer’s Oath – xxx I will delay no man for money or malice xxx
SALABAO V. ATTY. VILLARUEL, AC NO. 8084, 24 AUGUST 2015
Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court – Duties of Attorneys
(c) To counsel or maintain xxx such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law
xxx
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause xxx
Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not xxx delay any man’s cause
Rule 10.03 – A lawyer xxx shall not misuse [the rules of procedure] to defeat the ends
of justice
Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause
Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.
SALABAO V. ATTY. VILLARUEL, AC NO. 8084, 24 AUGUST 2015

From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed by respondent lawyer,
it is clear that his intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment in
favor of the complainant.
Respondent made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing court processes,
employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment, and
feigning ignorance of his duties as an officer of the court. He has breached his
own duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and
violated the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules
of Court.
SALABAO V. ATTY. VILLARUEL, AC NO. 8084, 24 AUGUST 2015

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent xxx is hereby found GUILTY of

violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended from the practice of law for
a period of eighteen (18) months.