I.

FE MARIE

1. Is Chapter IV of the CPR applicable to all lawyers? Explain.

`No. Chapter IV of the CPR do not apply to all lawyers specifically those who are
working in the government service who cannot engage in the private practice of law as
provided for by the law and nature of their office. Chapter IV of the CPR discusses
lawyer-client relationship which includes the collection and charging of fees, money and
properties that may come into the lawyer’s possession. In this sense, for lawyers in the
government service, this chapter finds no application.

2. Submit case digest of YU vs. Bondal, A.C. 5534, Jan 17, 2005
Jayne Y. Yu vs. Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal
A.C. No. 5534, 17 January 2005

Facts:
Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal was charged by Jayne Y. Yu for gross negligence and
violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because
of his alleged failure to attend to the five cases Yu referred to him and to return, despite
demand, the amount of P51,716.54 she has paid him.
On 30 March 2000, Yu engaged in the services of Bondal as her counsel in five (5)
cases and in the Retainer Agreement of the same date, complainant agreed to pay
respondent the amount of P200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the said cases, with an
Appearance Fee of P1,500.00 pesos per hearing; and in the event that damages are
recovered, she would pay respondent 10% thereof as success fee. Complainant later
issued two checks, dated 20 February 2001 and 5 April 2001 in the amount of P30,000.00
and P21,716.54, respectively. Despite receipt of above-said amounts, respondent failed to
attend on the said cases due to his negligence.
On 14 June 2001, complainant demanded from respondent for the return of all the
records she had entrusted him bearing on the subject cases. Through her counsel, she sent
a letter in which she demands for the return of the records of the cases. Respondent
returned only two of the five records. On 8 August 2001, she demanded the return of the
rest of the files and in the same letter; she also demanded the refund of the amounts
covered by the two checks she issued. Respondent failed and continues to refuse to
comply with complainant’s valid demands. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bondal violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by failing to return the amount he received from the client
despite demand.

Ruling:
No. The Court held that the respondent did not violate Rule 16.04 of Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyers shall deliver the funds
 and properties of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall 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”. In present case, the Court held that the complainant failed to
establish the guilt of respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The fact that
complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the four cases does not render void the
retainer agreement for respondent appears to have represented the interest of
complainant. Moreover, litigants need to be reminded that lawyers are not demigods or
magicians who can always win their cases for their clients no matter the utter lack of
merit of the same or how passionate the litigants may feel about their cause.
However, since respondent had been advised by complainant through her counsel that
she intended to terminate his services, he was obliged, under Rule 22.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to immediately turn over all papers and property which
complainant entrusted to his successor.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is, however,
hereby directed to RETURN all the records in his possession relative to the cases he
handled for complainant.

3. A lawyer confidently boasts to his client that they will win a case. Is this improper?
Yes. Rule 15.05 of the Canon 15 of the CPR provides that when a lawyer is advising
his client, he shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of
the client’s case, neither shall he overstate nor understate the prospects of the case. A
lawyer who confidently boasts to his client that they will win the case is considered
overstating the prospects of such which might set the client’s expectation too high. In this
sense, he is only allowed to provide opinions and information which are true to the
client’s case, however in doing this, he should also be mindful not to understate the
prospects of the client’s cause.

4. Submit a case digest in Tan Vs. Diamante, 7766, August 5, 2014.

4. Jose Allan Tan vs Atty. Pedro S. Dia
A.C. No. 7766, August 5, 2014

Facts:
This is an administrative case filed by Jose Allan Tan against Atty. Pedro Diamante.
Complainant secured the services of respondent in order to pursue a case for partition of
property against the heirs of the late spouses Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan. Respondent
accepted the engagement, however, the case was dismissed. Respondent knew of the
dismissal as early as August 14, 2007 but complainant was only informed of such fact on
August 24, 2007. Respondent allegedly asked for the amount of P10,000.00 for the payment
of appeal fees and other costs, but since complainant could not produce the said amount at
that time, respondent, instead, asked and was given the amount of P500.00 purportedly as
payment of the reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC. On
 September 12, 2007, Tan handed the amount of P10, 000.00 to respondent, who on even date,
filed a notice of appeal before the RTC.
In an order dated September 18, 2007, the RTC dismissed complainant’s appeal for
having been filed out of the time prescribed. Respondent, however, did not disclose such fact
and, instead, showed complainant an order dated November 9, 2007 purportedly issued by
the RTC directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove his filiation to the
late Luis Tan. When complainant went to the RTC to follow up his case, it was then that he
discovered that the November 9, 2007 order was spurious, as certified by the RTC’s Clerk of
Court. Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of respondent, his
appeal had long been dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed the instant administrative complaint for
disbarment against respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held liable for violating Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the
CPR by not informing his client of the status of the case.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyer’s duty to keep his client on
the status of the case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information. A lawyer’s inexcusable neglect to serve his client’s interests wi th utmost
diligence and competence as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct in order to conceal such neglect should never be countenanced, and thus,
administratively sanctioned.
In the present case, the respondent failed to timely inform his client of the status of the
case and even committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, i.e.,
complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, when in reality, his case had
long been dismissed for failure to timely file an appeal, thus, causing undue prejudice to the
latter. To the Court, respondent’s acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are
so flagrant, exhibiting his moral unfitness and inability to discharge his duties as a member of
the bar. His actions erode rather than enhance the public perception of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Pedro S. Diamante is hereby DISBARRED for Gross
Misconduct and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of
attorneys.

II. JOYCE
None

III. CARLA
 1. Should a private practitioner decline to represent a person who cannot pay due
to economic reason?

Yes. Although the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 14.01 states that “A
lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's race, sex.
creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.”,
this rule applies to a counsel de officio not to a counsel de parte. Hence, he may  refuse to
represent a client for any reason they choose or no reason at all.

2. Submit case digest of Canoy vs. Ortiz, A.C. 5485, March 16, 2005

ELMER CANOY vs. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ

A.C. No. 5485. March 16, 2005
TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

A Complaint dated 10 April 2001 was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant by
Elmer Canoy (Canoy) accusing Atty. Jose Max Ortiz (Atty. Ortiz) of misconduct and
malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his
former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint was filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Regional Arbitration Board VI in Bacolod City. Atty.
Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in this proceeding. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the
complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers. Canoy submitted all
the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper.
Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the
progress of the case. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during
which Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to follow-
up the case himself with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually
dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their
position papers. The dismissal was without prejudice. Canoy alleged that Atty. Ortiz had
never communicated to him about the status of the case, much less the fact that he failed to
submit the position paper.

In his defense, Atty. Ortiz commented that he had the intention of filing a motion to
enter a compromise agreement. Unfortunately, he was not able to do so because of his tight
schedule, being a newly-elected Councilor of Bacolod City. 

Atty. Ortiz notes that the dismissal of Canoy's complaint was without prejudice, thus
the prescriptive period had been tolled. He claims not being able to remember whether he
immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case, though as far as he could recall,
Canoy had conveyed a message to him that he had a lawyer to handle the case, thus his office
did not insist on refiling the same.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Ortiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his undisputed
negligence in failing to timely file the position paper was compounded by his failure to
inform Canoy of such fact, and the successive dismissal of the complaint.

RULING:

Yes. Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility guard against
the sort of conduct displayed by Atty. Ortiz with respect to the handling of Canoy's case.

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.
Rule 18.04–A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
...
CANON 22–A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
...
Rule 22.02 – A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

Atty. Ortiz should have filed the position paper on time, owing to his duty as counsel of
Canoy to attend to this legal matter entrusted to him. His failure to do so constitutes a
violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The circumstance of Atty. Ortiz's election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his
adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior. The
Code of Professional Responsibility does allow a lawyer to withdraw his legal services if the
lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office. City councilors are allowed to practice their
profession or engage in any occupation except during session hours, and in the case of
lawyers such as Atty. Ortiz, subject to certain prohibitions which are not relevant to this case.
In such case, the lawyer nevertheless has the choice to withdraw his/her services.

Assuming that Atty. Ortiz was justified in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just
do so and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. Indeed, Rule 22.02 requires that a
lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a lien, immediately turn over all
papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in
the orderly transfer of the matter. Atty. Ortiz claims that the reason why he took no further
action on the case was that he was informed that Canoy had acquired the services of another
counsel. Assuming that were true, there was no apparent coordination between Atty. Ortiz
and this new counsel. In fact, it took nearly two years before Canoy had learned that the
position paper had not been filed and that the case had been dismissed.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) month.

3. Submit case digest of Santiago vs Fojas, A.C. 4103, September 7, 1995

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO et al. vs. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS

A.C. No. 4103 September 7, 1995
DAVIDE JR., J.:

FACTS:

Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma. Socorro Manas, and Trinidad
Nordista were the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Auditor, respectively, of the
FEUFA. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador. The latter then
commenced with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint (NCR-OD-
M-90-10-050) to declare illegal his expulsion from the union which ruled in favour of
Salvador. Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, a complaint against the complainants herein for
actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

As the complainants' counsel, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case on
grounds of (1) res judicata and (2) lack of jurisdiction, since what was involved was an intra-
union issue cognizable by the DOLE. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. The
trial court, per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, granted the motion and ordered the dismissal
of the case. Upon Salvador's motion for reconsideration, however, it reconsidered the order of
dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the complainants herein to file their answer within
a nonextendible period of fifteen days from notice.

Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and dismissal of
the case. This motion having been denied, the respondent filed with this Court a petition
for certiorari, which was later referred to the Court of Appeals.

Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied, the
respondent still did not file the complainants' answer. Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's
motion, the complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was authorized to present
his evidence ex-parte. The respondent then filed a motion to set aside the order of default and
to stop the ex-parte reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court, but to no avail.

Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the complainants herein to pay, jointly
and severally, plaintiff Salvador the amounts of P200,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00
as exemplary damages or corrective damages; and P65,000.00 as attorney's fees; plus cost of
suit.
The complainants, still assisted by the respondent, elevated the case to the Court of Appeals,
which, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary

action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 for
which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered against them on
the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which was received ex-parte.

RULING:

Yes. Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability
to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a
lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with
diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."

The respondent's negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was
in fact a "losing cause" for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based
on the final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants' act of expelling Salvador
from the union to be illegal. This claim is a mere afterthought which hardly persuades us. If
indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense therein, he should have
seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility expressly provides: “A lawyer, when advising his client, shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case.”

We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the sad
fate of the complainants. He is liable for inexcusable negligence.

WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and

ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.

4. Should a lawyer follow all the recommendations and directives of his client as to
how the case should be handled?

No. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 19.03, “A lawyer shall not allow
his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.” Hence, a lawyer must act as a
lawyer and not as a mere agent waiting for his client’s instructions.
IV. MARJORIE

1. What should a lawyer, when discharged as such, do in relation to the documents

and properties relevant to the case?
Rule 22.02 of Canon 22 provides that “A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged
shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which
the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter”. Proper
endorsement and coordination between the lawyers must be observed as not to delay the
court proceedings.
In addition to this, the lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client (Rule 16.01, Canon 16) and 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. (Rule 16.03, Canon 16).

2. State the “access to justice” provided in the Constitution which requires lawyers
to render services pro bono.
The “access to justice” is found in Article III, Section 11 of our Constitution which
states that “free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty”. This provides
deserving indigents with free legal assistance, including counselling and court
representation, from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Public Attorney’s Office
which is attached to the Department of Justice and other private legal assistance
organizations.
3. A lawyer states that he has connections in the police. Is this improper?
Yes. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer
shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients”. Rule 15.06 further provides that “A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or elective body”. Rule 15.07 also states that “A
lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness”. A lawyer must only offer his professional skill to attain justice in a fair manner
and not his acquaintances or relationships with people in power. Such influence-peddling
of a lawyer is improper and highly unethical which also violates the mandate that lawyers
must at all times uphold the dignity and integrity in the practice of their profession

4. Is it proper for a lawyer to threaten another person with suit if the latter does
not perform the demand?
 No. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct”. Rule
19.01 of Canon 19 further provides that “A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding”. As a servant of the law, a lawyer must refrain
from doing any act which tends to lessen the confidence and trust of the public in the
integrity of the legal profession. The act of threatening another person with a suit to
obtain improper advantage constitute abuse of his profession and disrespect for the legal
processes, which is a ground for disciplinary action.

V. SYRINE

1. What are the parameters in determining whether a litigant is indigent?

Section 19 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides that indigent litigant are those (a)
whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an amount double to
the monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do not own real property with a fair
market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand
(P300,000.00) pesos.

2. May a lawyer whose services have been validly terminated refuse to deliver documents
and properties to a former client?

No, upon the demand of the client, a lawyer cannot refuse to deliver the documents and
properties of the former. However, under Section 37 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
lawyer shall have a lien to the funds, documents and papers which have come into his
possession until payment has been made for legal services and advice given subject to his
obligation to account for the said funds.

3. Submit case digest of Mercado vs. Security Bank, 160445, Feb. 16, 2006

G. R. No. 160445 February 16, 2006

Jose Teofilo Mercado and Ma. Agnes R. Mercado, Petitioners

Vs

Secutity Bank Corporation, Respondent

Sandoval Gutierrez, J,:

Facts:
 Jose Teofilo and Ma. Agnes Mercado, petitioners, filed for a Review of Certiorari
assailing Court of Appeals decision in dismissing their petition for annulment of
judgement and denying their Motion for Reconsideration for failure to show irreversible
error. After such dismissal, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
granted but was later denied for the same reason as the first. Petitioners filed another
Motion for Reconsideration but was dismissed. Still, petitioners filed for another Motion
for Reconsideration but subsequently denied for being prohibited. After such decisions,
Mercado wrote to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. stating that their counsel, Atty.
Jose P. Villanueva gave them vital information as to why the decision of the Court was in
favor of Security Bank. He wrote that the ponente was a very close friend of his formeer
counsel and they have known each other for a long time. He further wrote that the reason
why the decis in favor of Security Bank because of “tremendous pressure” from the Chief
Justice to the ponente. Mercado included in his letter his disappointment and frustration
on the case; questioning the Chief Justice as well as the legal system in the Philippines
through contemptuous remarks.

Chief Justice Davide, Jr. required Atty. Jose P. Villanueva to comment on the letter
and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. Mercado on the other
hand was ordered by the Court’s Third Division to appear and show cause why he should
not be held in contempt of court. On the given schedule, Mercado appeared with his new
counsel and swore that he only stated facts in his letter. While Mercado was firm in his
statements, his former counsel Atty. Villanueva strongly denied Mercado’s allegations.

Mercado submitted his explanation letter as to why he should not be held in contempt
of court and offered an apology. A few months after, Mercado and Atty. Villanueva
appeared at the Third Division to elucidate their respective positions.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Jose P. Villanueva should be held liable in contempt of Court by
giving false assurance that guarantees a positive outcome of the case to his client.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Villanueva should be held liable for giving assurances to his clients which
makes the client expect for an outcome in favor of them.

While Justice Dacudao did not categorically state that Atty. Villanueva told Mercado
that Chief Justice Davide exerted "tremendous pressure" on the ponente, it was only
through Atty. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or known the name of the
ponente in the case. Atty. Villanueva's statements led Mercado, not only to suspect but
also to believe, that the entire Court, together with Chief Justice Davide and the ponente,
could be pressured or influenced.

In informing Mercado that he was "a very very good, close and long time friend" of
the ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable
disposition of his case. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercado's
expectation crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and disrespectful
 accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente. Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not state or imply that he is
able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body. Further, Rule 15.07
provides that a lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness which the lawyer clearly violated. Thus, the Court find Atty.
Villanueva was guilty of indirect contempt of court.

Atty. Villanueva was fined P50,000.00 and warned that a repetition of similar acts
will warrant a more severe penalty.

4. What is blackmail?

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, blackmail was defined as extortion of money
from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public print,
obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation
against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice. In common
parlance and in general acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion,
the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or
the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on
the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses,
the follies, or the crime of the victim.

VI. SIEGLYN

FACTS: Complainants engaged Atty. Cosme’s legal services for the Declaration of
Ownership with Damages in which the complainants were the defendants represented by
Atty. Cosme in the aforementioned case. The court decided against them.

Complainants alleged that they directed Atty. Cosme either to file a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but he failed/declined to do so. Consequently, the
15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the MTC decision expired and the
complainant was constrained to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion for
Reconsideration who did not, however, enter his appearance as new counsel. The Motion
for Reconsideration was denied by the MTC.

On 31 March 2004, a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed but Atty.
Cosme never bothered to file an opposition to or any comment on the said motion despite
receipt thereof. The motion was eventually granted then an Entry of Judgment was made
in the said case subsequently.
Atty. Cosme claimed that Salvador Ramirez (the son of one of the complainants,
Inocencia V. Ramirez), withdrew the case from him, and engaged another lawyer which
ensued him to turn over the records of the case and ceased as the counsel of the
complainants. He then filed his Notice of Retirement of Counsel with the MTC, two
months after he received a copy of the Decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cosme committed culpable negligence which violated Rule
18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, Section 26, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, Canon
22 and Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR in handling complainants' case due to:

(1.) His failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration and his failure to file an
opposition to or any comment in a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution;
(2.) His turnover of the records of the case to his client and his withdrawal as a
lawyer through Salvador Ramirez and;
(3.) His filing of Notice of Retirement of Counsel two months after he received a
copy of the Decision

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Cosme’s acts aforementioned above violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR
for failing to protect the interest of the complainants, which states that "a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."

The same acts by Atty. Cosme constituted abandonment of the complainant’s case which
does not fall under any of the grounds or neither can the circumstances of this case be
considered analogous to the grounds thus explicitly enumerated under Section 26, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court, Canon 22 of the CPR which states that: “a lawyer
shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances” and Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the CPR. An attorney may only retire from
the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due
notice and hearing, in which event, the attorney should see to it that the name of the new
attorney is recorded in the case.

Supreme court suspended Atty. Cosme from the practice of law for 3 months for gross
negligence for his failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer.

What should be the response of a lawyer who has been requested to render free
legal services?

It depends. A lawyer may accept to render free legal service by reason of;

1. Moral obligation as a lawyer. The rendition of free legal service is a moral duty
of a lawyer, which is above social obligation and legal mandate. The lawyer
voluntarily imposes upon himself higher duties and more noble obligations
enshrined in the Lawyer's Oath, which goes beyond commitment to social
obligation and legal mandates.
 2. Constitutional mandate. The 1987 Constitution guarantees in Article III, Section
11 that “free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty”. For example,
PAO lawyers, cannot refuse to handle indigent clients based on PAO
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 02 Series of 2010 and RA 9406.
3. A lawyer’s duty. Rule 14.02, Canon 14 of the CPR states that: “A lawyer shall
not refuse his services to the needy and shall not decline, except for serious and
sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a
request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.” The Code requires that absent serious and sufficient
cause to decline representation, lawyers must accept certain pro bono cases
assigned to them. A counsel de oficio who is duty bound to exert his best effort
and professional ability to defend his client (People vs. Estebia, G.R. No. L-
26868) or decline the appointment itself as counsel de oficio (Rule 14.02, Canon
14 of the CPR)

However, a lawyer may as well refuse representation of an indigent client when (a.) he is
not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently or (b.) he labors under a
conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and
the prospective client (Rule 14.03, Canon 14 of CPR).

A person is arrested for violation of the existing ECQ laws, particularly, for staging
a rally. The lawyer of said person said that he can continue to stage a rally. Is the
advice improper?

The advice is improper. Canon 1 of the CPR states that, “A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes”.  
A lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good
citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an example
for others to emulate. He is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as respect
for the law is concerned. 

In the case at bar, for his client’s safety, the lawyer should have advised otherwise with
respect to the conduct of mass gatherings/rally which is one of the acts prohibited by the
guidelines on the imposition of an Enhanced Community Quarantine and the stringent
social distancing measures pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 929 and 922 and RA 11332,
following the sharp increase in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases throughout the
country.

Furthermore, the continuation of the rally will lead to even greater distress for his client
by likely committing additional offenses such as violation of RA 11469 or the Bayanihan
to Heal as One Act, the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events
of Public Health Concern Act and resistance and disobedience to authorities under article
151 of the Revised Penal Code among others.

Fernando Martin O. Pena, Complainant vs.

Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio, Respondent
A.C. NO. 7298, June 25, 2007
TINGA, J.:

FACTS: Grace Hufana engaged Atty. Aparicio’s legal services for an illegal dismissal
case before the NLRC praying for a claim for separation pay against Fernando Martin O.
Pena (President of MOF Company, Inc. in Subic) which he rejected as being baseless.

Complainant subsequently sent notices to Hufana for the latter to explain her absences
and to return to work. In response, Atty. Aparicio sent a letter to Pena reiterating the
separation pay claim for his client. Atty. Aparicio also threatened Pena through this letter
that should he fail to pay the proposed settlement amount, he would file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion,
falsification of documents, and cancellation of a business license to operate due to
violation of laws. Peña filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Aparicio with the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for violating Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the
CPR. Atty. Aparicio in turn filed counterclaims for the defamatory charges against him.
The IBP dismissed the complaint because Peña had allegedly failed to file his position
paper and the certification against forum shopping. The IBP transmitted the records of the
case to the Supreme Court.

Atty. Aparicio then filed with the IBP a Motion for Reconsideration (for Modification of
Decision) reiterating his claim of damages against Pena of 400 million pesos or its
equivalent in dollars, for filing the "false, malicious, defamers, fraudulent, illegal
fabricators, malevolent, oppressive, evasive filing of a groundless and false suit” which
lead to Pena’s filing of a Petition for Review alleging that he submitted his position paper
and that the dismissal denied him of due process.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aparicio be disbarred by writing a demand letter the
contents of which threatened Pena that should he fail to pay the proposed settlement
amount, he would file and claim bigger amounts, including moral damages, as well as
multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of a
business license to operate due to violation of laws, constituted an act in violation of
Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR.

RULING: Canon 19 of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law," reminding legal practitioners 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; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law
and ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a "lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate
in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or
threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries
of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw
their own cases against the lawyer's client.

In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also
amount to blackmail (“the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or
 exposure or opposition in the public prints,…obtaining of value from a person as a
condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret
calculated to operate to his prejudice”). The letter in this case contains more than just a
simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against Pena
which have nothing to do with his client’s claim for separation pay but also designed to
secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this
nature definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

As per Atty. Aparicio’s disbarment, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical
standards, Supreme Court hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on
respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his
client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty imposed is reprimand.

VII. BRYAN

1. Question:

An accused insisted for the court to appoint Atty. Estelito Mendoza whom the said
defendant as not met and talked with despite sufficient time given by the court. Can the
court appoint another lawyer over the objection of the accused?

Answer:

No. The Court cannot appoint another lawyer over the objection of the accused.
Deeply rooted is the jurisprudence which provides that it is not enough that a counsel de
officio is appointed by the trial court, especially where the accused had indicated his desire
for a lawyer of his choice. This is to accord respect to the constitutional right of an accused to
be assisted by counsel. Corollary to this duty, the presiding judge must give the counsel de
officio ample opportunity to examine not only the records of the case, but also to confer with
the accused lengthily, properly, and intelligently and fully represent and defend the interest of
the accused.
2. Question:
The client committed illegal conduct in the handling of a case. His lawyer filed a
motion to withdraw appearance due to such client’s infraction. Is the lawyer still considered
as counsel-on-record?
Answer:
Yes. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in one case, the lawyer has no right to
presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. Until his withdrawal
shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his client
as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. He must still appear on
the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is a
withdrawal of record.

3. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol vs. Atty. James Benedict Florido
A.C. No. 5736, June 18, 2010
FACTS:

The members of the Board of Directors of Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) filed a
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido for acts
constituting grave coercion and threats. The complainant alleges that the respondent and his
clients, the Nazareno-Relampagos group, through force and intimidation and with the use of
armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly
evicted the bank manager Cirilo A. Garay, destroyed the bank's vault, and installed their own
staff to run the bank.
Respondent denied RBCI's allegations, explaining that he acted in accordance with the
authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly
elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Moreover, respondent alleged that a termination notice
was sent to Garay but he refused to comply. Respondent, through the orders of the Nazareno-
Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the bank's vault.

IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. submitted his report and declared that
respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of law and
justice. According to Commissioner Villadolid, Jr., respondent knew or ought to have known
that his clients could not just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI
without a valid court order.

The IBP Board of Governors declared that respondent dismally failed to live up to the
exacting standards of the law profession and suspended respondent from the practice of law
for one year with a warning that repetition of similar conduct will warrant a more severe
penalty. Respondent filed Motion for Reconsideration but the IBP denied the respondent’s
motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyer's
duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at
defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.

Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall represent
his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code
requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of
fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of
his client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking
justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.

Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional
oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a
tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers
of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients' interests is secondary to their obligation
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to
present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be
made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the
fair administration of justice.

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.

Therefore, respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido is guilty of violating his oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice
of law for one year.

4. Alex Ong vs. Atty. Elpidio D. Unto

A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002

FACTS:

The complainant received a demand-letter from the respondent as legal counsel of one
Nemesia Garganian claiming for the support of the alleged child of the complainant with the
latter. A few days thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno
(Agaw), an emissary of the complainant. In this letter, the respondent listed down the alleged
additional financial demands of Ms. Garganian against the complainant and discussed the
courses of action that he would take against the complainant should the latter fail to comply
with his obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son.

It was alleged that the real father of Ms. Garganian’s son was the complainant’s brother and
that the complainant merely assumed his brother’s obligation to appease Ms. Garganian who
was threatening to sue them. The complainant then did not comply with the demands against
him.

Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal (now
Prosecutor’s Office) of Dumaguete City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim, and
one Albina Ong, for alleged violation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Anti-
Dummy Law.
The next day, the respondent filed another criminal complaint against the complainant, Lim,
Ong and Adela Peralta for their alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.

In addition, the respondent commenced administrative cases against the complainant before
the Bureau of Domestic Trade, the Commission on Immigration and Deportation, and the
Office of the Solicitor General. According to the complainant, these cases were subsequently
denied due course and dismissed by the aforesaid government agencies.

The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present case for disbarment. The records
show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any
information against the complainant just so he would have a leverage in his actions against
the latter. The complainant branded the respondent’s tactics as “highly immoral,
unprofessional and unethical, constituting…malpractice of law and conduct gravely
unbecoming of a lawyer.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of

lawyer.

RULING:

Yes. The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds
of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that “a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.”

The respondent’s action is malicious as the cases he instituted against the complainant did not
have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms. Garganian. Clearly, the
respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His behavior is
inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding and he shall not do any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.

The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be
disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such
a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
 In view whereof, respondent Atty. Elpidio D. Unto is hereby declared guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of five months
and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.

VIII. BANNY

Question No.1:
Is death of a client, with heirs, a valid ground for the lawyer to withdraw his services?
Answer:
It depends, based on the general rule prescribed by Canon 22 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that,” A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.” In a case when the death of
client which is the accused, with his heirs, is considered valid cause for withdrawal in
criminal cases wherein the death terminates the case. The death of the client herein, makes
the impossibility of continuation of the lawyer-client relationship. However, in the case
where the client is the victim, and the lawyer was paid in full for his services, he shall
continue to prosecute the case. Furthermore, in civil cases, where the lawyer was paid in full
for his services, especially when the properties of the client are at stake or there is an interest
of a third party that should be protected such as obligation arises from loan, taxes, etc., the
peculiar consequences arise. Hence, even when the client and his heirs died, if the lawyer-
client relationship may continue, until there is notice or approval of the court for the lawyer’s
withdrawal of service, he will be remained counsel of record who is expected by his client as
well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require.

Question No. 2:
Is rendition of free legal service a matter of charity?
Answer:
No, Legal service or aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of
social imbalances that may and often do lead to injustice, for which the reason it is a public
 responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid
offices. The same should be so administered as to give maximum possible assistance to the
indigent and deserving members of the community in all cases, matters and situations in
which legal aid may be necessary to forestall an injustice (Public Service, Sec. 1, Art. 1 of the
IBP Guidelines on Legal Aid)
Question No. 3:
A lawyer is also a CPA. What should he likewise do if a person seeks to engage his
professional services?
Answer:
The lawyer should make clear to his client what service he is acting upon, if he is
acting as a lawyer or as a CPA. Under Rule 15.08, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, “A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently
with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.” This rule is intended for the benefit of both the client and the lawyer to
avoid confusion.
Question No. 4:
The client testified falsely in court contrary to what he told to his lawyer. What should the
lawyer do?
Answer:
The lawyer should promptly call upon his client to rectify his false testimony by
recanting the same before the court. If the client fail or refuse to do so, the lawyer then shall
terminate their relationship as under Rule 19.02, Canon 19 of Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that, “A lawyer who has received information that his client has,
in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall
promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.”
IX. ARIEL
Case Digest of PAO vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. Nos. 154297-300
February 15, 2008.
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari alleging that the Sandiganbayan, Special
Division, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions retaining petitioners, Atty. Maximo B. Usita, Jr. and
Atty. Wilfredo C. Andres of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), as counsels de oficio of
then accused President Joseph Estrada and his son, Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada.
Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, Chief Public Attorney of PAO requested the relief of the
appearance of PAO as de oficio counsel for accused President Joseph Estrada and Jose
Estrada in their criminal cases before the Sandigabayan. However, the request was denied.
 She filed an Urgent and Ex-Parte Motion to be Relieved as Court-Appointed Counsel
with the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, praying that she be relieved of her duties and
responsibilities as counsel de oficio for the said accused because of workload and that the
accused are not indigent persons; hence, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the
services of PAO. The motion was granted.
The remaining eight PAO lawyers filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Be Relieved as
Court-Appointed Counsels with respondent Court on the ground that the accused, former
President Joseph Estrada and Jose Estrada, are not indigents; therefore, they are not qualified
to avail themselves of the services of PAO.
In denying the motion, the court finds that the ground raised by the movants PAO
lawyers are mere rehashes/reiterations of their previous arguments which the Court finds to
be not valid justification for them to be relieved, either temporarily or permanently of their
duties and responsibilities as counsels de oficio.
Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondent in
rendering the Resolutions dated May 28, 2002 and June 10, 2002.
PAO contends that it is undeniable that in retaining its two PAO lawyers as counsels de
oficio of former President Estrada and Jose Estrada, respondent Court relied upon the
provisions of Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides
that the Court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that
may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio of such members of the bar in good standing,
who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused.
PAO, however, submits that the power of respondent to appoint and retain PAO lawyers
as counsels de oficio is limited such that only those indigent individuals are qualified to be
represented by the PAO.
PAO argues that the only exception when it can appear on behalf of a non-indigent client
is when there is no available lawyer to assist such client in a particular stage of the case, that
is, during arraignment or during the taking of the direct testimony of any prosecution witness
subject to cross-examination by the private counsel on record. The appearance of PAO is
only provisional in those instances.
PAO asserts that while its lawyers are also aware of their duties under Rule 14.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, PAO lawyers are limited by their mandate as
government lawyers.
Hence, PAO submits that the subject Resolutions of respondent are not in accordance
with the mandate of PAO and affect the rendition of effective legal service to a large number
of its deserving clients.
In defense, respondent stated that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion since it did
not act in an arbitrary, capricious and whimsical manner in issuing the subject Resolutions.
It explained that it was facing a crisis when respondent issued the subject Resolutions. At
that time, the accused, former President Joseph Estrada, relieved the services of his counsels
on nationwide television. Subsequently, the counsels of record of co-accused Jose Estrada
withdrew, and both accused were adamant against hiring the services of new counsels
because they allegedly did not believe in and trust the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan
had the duty to decide the cases, but could not proceed with the trial since the accused were
not assisted by counsel.
Respondent stated that, bound by its duty to protect the constitutional right of the
accused to be heard by himself and counsel, it exercised its prerogative under Sec. 7, Rule
116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
ISSUE: WON The PAO can validly decline an appointment as counsel de officio for Estrada
RULING: NO. The rule provides that a lawyer shall not decline the appointment as counsel
de officio except for serious or sufficient cause.
Here, At the time of PAO’s appointment, the accused did not want to avail themselves of any
counsel; in view of this, the respondent exercised a judgment call to protect the
constitutional right of the accused to be heard by themselves and counsel during the trial of
the cases. Respondent also merely required petitioners to perform their duty as members of
the Bar and officers of the court to assist the court in the efficient administration of justice.
Hence, the PAO lawyers cannot validly decline an appointment as counsel de officio where
the case concerns the protection of the constitutional rights of the accused and where the
services in compliance to its duty to assist in the efficient and speedy administration of
justice.
2. May a lawyer who has been elected or appointed to public office validly withdraw his
appearance in a case he is handling prior to entry in the government service on such ground?
ANS: Yes. Under Rule 22.01 of the CPR, one of the grounds where a lawyer may validly
withdraw his appearance in a case is when he is elected or appointed to a public office.
However, I submit that this is not an all-encompassing rule. Where the law of the nature of
office and function where a lawyer is elected or appointed to, allows him to practice law, and
that there will be no conflict of interest between the client and the government, his election or
appointment in such office cannot be considered as good cause for withdrawal of his
services. For once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of the client it impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination owing to such fidelity, trust and confidence reposed to him by his
client. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without
reasonable or good cause shown.
3. When is a lawyer acting as trustee for his client? ANS: Generally, a lawyer becomes a
trustee of the client the moment an attorney-client relationship if formed as this relationship
is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence where the lawyer acts as trustee and the client
acting as trustor in regard to the subject matter of the engagement. To be more specific,
Canon 16 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property of his
client that may come into his possession. Basically, where a client endorsed money and
property to the lawyer or where the lawyer receives from or for the client money or property,
in effect, the lawyer is acting as trustee of the client who is also considered as trustor.
 4. Whose decision should prevail if there is a conflict of opinion between the lawyer and his
client (also, a lawyer)? ANS: It depends. As to procedure, it is the lawyer’s opinion should
prevail as it is the client must yield to the lawyer and not otherwise. In this case, the lawyer’s
opinion prevails, it is of no moment that the client also happens to be a lawyer. Rule 19.03 of
the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling
a case. As to subject matter, cause of action, claim or demand, these are within the client’s
control. A client may waive, surrender, dismiss or compromise any of his rights involved in
the litigation even with or against the consent of his attorney. In this case, it is the client’s
opinion shall prevail
X. WINNIE

1. Rule 14.03 provides that a lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an
indigent client unless: (a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
competently; (b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client
or between a present client and the prospective client.
2. Yes. Under rule 22.01, A lawyer may withdraw his services when the client
deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement. The lawyer, however, cannot just do so and leave complainants in the cold,
unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be
granted by the court. Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains
counsel of record who is expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the
interests of his clients require. The attorney-client relations are not terminated formally until
there is a withdrawal of record.
3. No. The law expressly prohibits a lawyer from purchasing, even at a public of judicial
auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, any property or interest
involved in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession. It is one of
the rules protective of the fiduciary relation between lawyer and the client.
4. There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney’s fees, the so-called ordinary
and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation
paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis of
this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client.
In its extraordinary concept, an attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the
court to be paid by the losing party in litigation. The basis of this is any of the cases provided
by law where such award can be made, such as those authorized in Article 2208, Civil Code,
and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall
pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.

XI. ANGELO
1. A lawyer suffered mild stroke. Can he validly withdraw his appearance in a case he is
handling?
 Yes. If the mild stroke will render him difficult to carry out the employment
effectively, then he may validly withdraw his appearance. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that:

“A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:

(a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case;
(b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the
Code of Professional Responsibility;
(c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could
not get along to the detriment of the case;
(d) when the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable
of handling the case effectively;
(e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney's fees agreed upon;
(f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office;
(g) other similar cases.”
In which case, if it is proven so, the said case will be covered paragraph (d) of the Rule 22.01
of the Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the contrary, if it is proven
that he is still fit to service, then the circumstance is not a valid ground for his withdrawal.

2. What should a lawyer first inquire into when a person comes to him for representation?

He should for the circumstances under which the client is into so as to ascertain if
conflict with other clients or conflict of interest is involved, and if so, inform the prospective
client. Rule 15.01 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that:“A
lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether
the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.” If not, then to assess if he is qualified or not to
render or competent on the matter, so as to render a decision whether or not to proceed.
Accordingly, Rule 18.01 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that:
“A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he
can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.”

3. What is the accounting duty of a lawyer?

The accounting duty of a lawyer is to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession, as what is provided for in the Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the moneys collected by a lawyer in pursuance
of a judgment in favor of his client are held in trust for the client. Considering this, a lawyer
is accountable thereof to his client. Consequently, the highly fiduciary and confidential
relation of attorney and client requires that the lawyer should promptly account for all the
funds received or held by him for the client’s benefits. In order that he may promptly account
for or deliver the same to the client or representative, he should keep and maintain adequate
records of the client’s moneys and properties in custody. Also, the lawyer is under strict
obligation to label and to identify his client’s property and keep it separate and apart form his
own. He must not commingle his client’s moneys with other moneys in his possession so as
not only to prevent confusion but also to “avoid the appearance of impropriety. Also, the
temptation to convert them to personal use is one step removed.
4. Submit case digest of Masmud vs. NLRC, 183385, Feb. 13, 2009.
FACTS:
On July 9, 2003, Evangelina Masmud’s (Evangelina) husband, the late Alexander J. Masmud
(Alexander), filed a complaint against First Victory Shipping Services and Angelakos
(Hellas) S.A. for non-payment of permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness
allowance, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Alexander engaged the
services of Atty. Rolando B. Go, Jr. (Atty. Go) as his counsel. In consideration of Atty. Go’s
legal services, Alexander agreed to pay attorney’s fees on a contingent basis, as follows:
twenty percent (20%) of total monetary claims as settled or paid and an additional ten percent
(10%) in case of appeal. It was likewise agreed that any award of attorney’s fees shall pertain
to respondent’s law firm as compensation.
On November 21, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision granting the monetary
claims of Alexander. Alexander’s employer filed an appeal before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). During the pendency of the proceedings before the NLRC,
Alexander died. After explaining the terms of the lawyer’s fees to Evangelina, Atty. Go
caused her substitution as complainant.
The appeal was dismissed. It was then elevated to the CA as an appeal but again dismissed.
On settlement, Evangelina paid 680,000 which is only 20% of the total award. Atty. Go filed
a
motion to record and enforce the attorney’s lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their
contingent fee agreement. In response, Evangelina manifested that Atty. Go’s claim for
attorney’s fees of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based on Article 111 of
the Labor Code. LA Decision favored Atty. Go. It was then appealed to the NLRC but then
dismissed for lack of merit; then appealed to the CA but in effect affirmed the LA’s decision.
Hence, the instant case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract regarding to attorney’s fee between Atty. Go and Masmud is null
and void.

HELD:
No.
There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees
represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services
rendered to the latter.
On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by the
court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, such
that, in any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made, e.g., those
authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, the amount is payable not to the lawyer but to
the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof. Here, we apply the ordinary concept of attorney’s fees, or
the compensation that Atty. Go is entitled to receive for representing Evangelina, in
substitution of her husband, before the labor tribunals and before the court.
Article 111 of the said Code provides: ART. 111. Attorney's fees. — (a) In cases of
unlawful withholding of wages the culpable party may be assessed attorney's fees equivalent
to ten percent of the amount of the wages recovered. Contrary to Evangelina’s proposition,
Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary concept of attorney’s fees. It
regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees in the nature of damages sustained by and
awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be used as the standard in fixing the amount
payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal services he rendered.

In this regard, Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court should be observed in
determining Atty. Go’s compensation. The said Rule provides:
SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney's; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to
have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services,
with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the
services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by
the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract
for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable. The contract shall control in the determination of the
amount to be paid, unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The criteria found in the Code of Professional Responsibility are also to be
considered in assessing the proper amount of compensation that a lawyer should
receive.1avvph¡1.zw+ Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the said Code provides:
CANON 20 — A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE
FEES.
Rule 20.01. — A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered
case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
Chapter to
which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
from the
service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
In this case, the contract between Atty. Go and Masmud when it comes to attorney’s
fees is inordinary sense, thus Article 111 of the Labor Code cannot be applied since it deals
with the extraordinary concept. Also, considering that Atty. Go successfully represented his
client, it is only proper that he should receive adequate compensation for his efforts. Thus,
Section 24 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Rule 20.01 of Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Ethics is further justified by the effort of Atty. Go and the complexity of the
case; the fee not found to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

The Court finds nothing illegal in the contingent fee contract between Atty. Go and
Evangelina’s husband.
XII. JAIME

1. A lawyer is the counsel de parte of one person in a civil case. He is also the
counsel de officio of an accused in another case. The two cases were calendared for
hearing on the same date. The lawyer promptly performed his duty in the civil case. In
the criminal case, the said lawyer moved for postponement. What error, if any, did the
lawyer commit?

The lawyer violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

provides that a Lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him and Rule 18.03 which states that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
He should prioritize the criminal case for it is more burdensome as compared to the
civil case for the life and liberty of his client was entrusted to him and he should show
fidelity and dedication in performing his duty as his lawyer.
Hence,he should be administratively sanctioned for his negligence.

2. May a lawyer validly withdraw his appearance in case the moment his client hires
a collaborating counsel?
Yes The original counsel may withdraw based on Rule 22.01 which provides that
A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following case;

(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in

connection with the matter he is handling;

(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;

(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;

(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult
for him to carry out the employment effectively;

(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails
to comply with the retainer agreement;

(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

(g) Other similar cases.
3. Submit case digest of Cunanan vs. Rimorin, 5315, Aug. 23, 2000
FACTS:

Modesto Cunanan filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rex Rimorin for allegedly
misappropriating funds which rightfully belongs to Cunanan. The funds were supposedly the
payment of ABS-CBN to Cunanan regarding an interview about his son’s death. ABS-CBN
represented by Noli De Castro issued checks amountimg P200,000.00 to Cunanan’s counsel,
Atty Rimorin for the said payment. He verbally agreed to agreed to pay the respondent a
professional fee of P40,000.00 out of the P200,000.00, however, Atty. Rimorin only
appropriated P30,000 to Cunanan and failed to account the balance of P170,000. Rimorin
now filed a disbarment case before the IBP against Atty. Rimorin for fraudulently
embezzling his funds. Respondent countered that the case should also be dismissed for a
same affidavit was submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City and
dismissed the estafa case charged against him.

It is the finding of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that there is a need for an
appropriate accounting of the P200,000.00 which respondent received in trust for his client.In
the scheduled hearings of his administrative case despite due notice and was given all the
opportunity to attend the scheduled hearings, the respondent failed to do so. Complainant's
demand for an accounting has not been satisfied by respondent. Respondent has not given
any indication that he would render the accounting of funds as demanded by the complainant.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rimorin violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Rimorin violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

which states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession and Rule 16.1 which provides that a lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client.
The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that
respondent lawyer should promptly account for the said funds which he received and held for
the benefit of his client. That is because those funds properly belong to the client. The client
has the right to know how the funds were applied,used or disbursed by his counsel. A lawyer
should always keep in mind the welfare and interest of his client.
In the case, there is no evidence to show how the funds were used and applied by
respondent. It is clear, therefore, that respondent has violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence,respondent should be suspended from the practice of law and to render
accounting of P170,000.00 presenting the balance of the sum of P200,000.00 which he
received in trust for Cunanan.
4. What innominate contract is applicable in the payment of attorney's fees?
 It was held in the case of Corpus v.  Court of Appeals that the payment of attorney’s
fees to respondent David may also be justified by virtue of the innominate contract of
facio ut des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that "no one shall
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another."innominate contracts have been
elevated to a codal provision in the New Civil Code by providing under Article 1307
that such contracts shall be regulated by the stipulations of the parties,by the general
provisions or principles of obligations and contracts, by the rules governing the most
analogous nominate contracts,and by the customs of the people. The rationale of this
article was stated in the 1903 case of Perez v. Pomar (2 Phil. 982). In that case, the
Court sustained the claim of plaintiff Perez for payment of services rendered against
defendant Pomar despite the absence of an express contract to that effect, 

XIII. HEINRICH

1. A client instructs his lawyer to bribe the judge. Can the lawyer withdraw his appearance in
the case?
Answer: Yes, a lawyer may validly withdraw his appearance in the case, for his client's
insistence to follow an unjust or immoral course in the conduct of his case. Also, in Canon 44
of Professional Ethics provides that he may withdraw as counsel when the client conducts
himself in a manner tending to degrade his attorney (State vs Berch, 267 Mo. 397). The
lawyers should not throw up the unfinished task to the detriment of his client except for
reasons of honor or self-respect. The act of his client clearly established an unjust course in
the conduct of his case resulting to degrade his lawyers' self-respect.
2. Submit case digest of Metro Iloilo vs. CA, [G.R. No. 122855
Facts: Petitioner is water district organized under the provisions of PD No. 198. Its
services encompass the entire territorial areas of Iloilo City and the Municipalities of Ma-
asin, Cabanatuan, Santa Barbara and Pavia.
Petitioner filed petitions for injunction and for temporary restraining order against
herein private respondents for the unauthorized extraction or withdrawal of groundwater by
the respondents without the necessary permit. Thus, violating the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner duly approved by the National Water
Resources Council.
That the act of the respondents in continuing to extract or withdraw ground water
without a Water Permit therefor, is in violation of Art. XIII of P.D. 1067 of the Water Code
of the Philippines.
In their respective answers, private respondents uniformly invoked the lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court, contending that the cases were within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the National water Resources Council under P.D. 1067, as amended.
 The trial court dismissed the petitions ruling that the controversy was within the
jurisdiction of the Water Council, involving as it did the appropriation, exploitation and
utilization of water, and the factual issues were within the Waters Council’s Competence.
The petition for review and Petition for Reconsideration were also denied by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction on the subject case as the extraction and
sale of ground water within the petitioner’s service area violated petitioner’s rights as a water
district, justifying the issuance of injunction?
Ruling:
Yes. In essence, the petitions focus on the violations incurred by the private
respondents by virtue of their alleged unauthorized extraction and withdrawal of ground
water within petitioner’s service area, visa-a-vis petitioner’s vested rights as a water district.
The petitions having raised a judicial question, it follows that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, on the basis of which petitions were dismissed by the trial court and
Court of Appeals, does not even come to play. The present petitions calls for the issuance of
an injunction order to prevent private respondents from extracting and selling ground water
within petitioner’s service area. It is petitioner’s enjoyment of its rights as a water district
which it seeks to assert against private respondents.
The case is ordered REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings, with costs against
respondents.
3. A lawyer has one bank account for his savings. The client instructed him to collect a sum
of money, and wait for his arrival from abroad. The lawyer deposited the money he collected
in the said bank account. Is this improper?
Answer. Yes. Canon 16 Rule 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others
kept by him.
4. May a lawyer be paid attorney's fees in the form of a property which is the subject of
litigation?
Answer. Yes. In terms of Contingent Fee Contract, an agreement in which the lawyer's fee,
usually, a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action is made to depend upon
the success in the effort to enforce or defend the client's right.
In the absence of a prohibiting statute, a contingent fee agreement between an attorney and
his client, under which the attorney is to have a portion of the thing in litigation in the event
of a successful prosecution or defense of an action, is generally recognized as valid (14 Am
Jur 2d 41, p. 845), if not attended by fraud, mistake, undue influence, or suppression of facts
(7 Am Jur 2d 414, p. 171).
 However, if the lawyer agrees to conduct the litigation on his own account and to pay the
expenses thereof, and to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment. It
appears as champertous contract, which is contrary to public policy and invalid as it violates
the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client.

XIV. GENEVIE

1. A lawyer is a devoted catholic. A transgender individual comes to him to represent him in

a case which seeks to nullify the provision in the Family Code which limits marriage between
a man and a woman only. Should the lawyer accept the engagement?
Under the Sec. 20 (h), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney to "Never
to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed". Regardless of personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation
because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse.
However, in the case of Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis vs. Civil Registrar-General (G.R. No.
217910), the Supreme Court dismissed the same-sex marriage case that seeks to invalidate
Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code mainly due to jurisdictional defects, technicalities and
procedural failures on the part of the petitioner. This matter is a question of policy which
cannot take cognizance and must remain to be within the province of legislature.
Under the Sec. 20 (c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney “to counsel
or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses
only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law”. Knowing this duty of an
attorney, therefore, he can decline acceptance of the engagement.
2. May a client terminate the services of a lawyer even without valid and justifiable cause?
Yes. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a client may at any
time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between the
client and the attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal was without justifiable
cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated in the
contract.
In the case of Elisa V. Venterez vs. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme (A. C. No. 7421, October 10,
2007), states that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at any
time with or without cause. Nevertheless, the client cannot deprive his counsel of right to be
paid services if the dismissal is without cause. The client cannot discharge his counsel as an
excuse to secure repeated extensions of time. Notice of discharge is required for both the
court and the adverse party.
3. What is a Retaining Lien?
In the case of Valentin C. Miranda vs. Atty. Macario D. Carpio (A.C. No. 6281, September
26, 2011), the attorney's retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the account between
the attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and funds of the client which may
lawfully come into the attorney's possession in the course of his employment. An attorney's
retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the following elements concurs: (1)
 lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's funds, documents and papers;
and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees.
Moreover, Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that "An attorney
shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client, which have lawfully
come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements
have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.”

4. Is champerty allowed?
Champertous Contract is not allowed for being against public policy, prohibited by law
for violation of the fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and a client. In the case of The
Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo vs. Victorino T. Lacaya (G.R. No.
173188, January 15, 2014), it was discussed that any agreement by a lawyer to conduct the
litigation in his own account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client therefrom and
to receive as his fee a portion of the proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious to the law. It is
designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an interest between him and his client.
Champertous Contract is similar to Contingent fee agreement wherein the lawyer will be
paid only if he is successful in handling the case. What makes it Champertous is the
provision that the lawyer will shoulder the expenses of litigation, which makes it invalid.
However, contingent fee contract is valid because they redound to the benefit of the poor
clients and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but
no means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a
contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of litigation by which also under
supervision and scrutiny of the court.

XV. ALEXA

Questions:
1. A person raped and murdered a child. The evidence of guilt is strong. A lawyer believes
that the said person is guilty. Should the lawyer still represent the said person?
- Yes. A lawyer cannot refuse to represent a person in account for his personal opinion
whether or not the person is guilty of the crime committed because under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canon 14.01, it states that, ‘A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed, or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of the person. Therefore, any lawyer who
shall refuse to represent a person in account of his personal opinion regarding the guilt of
the latter is a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. State at least 5 general instances which terminate lawyer-client relationship.
(1) When a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case;
(2) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility;
(3) When the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers could not get along to
the detriment of the case;
(4) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling
the case effectively;
(5) When the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney’s fees agreed upon.
3. Case digest of Barcenas vs. Alvero

FACTS:

Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio (San Antonio), entrusted to
Atty. Alvero the amount of P300,000.00, which the latter was supposed to give to a certain
Amanda Gasta to redeem the rights of his deceased father as tenant of a ricefield located
in Barangay San Benito, Victoria, Laguna. The receipt of the money was evidenced by an
acknowledgment receipt2cЃa dated May 7, 2004. Later, Barcenas found out that Atty. Alvero
was losing a lot of money in cockfights. To check if the money they gave Atty. Alvero was
still intact, Barcenas pretended to borrow P80,000.00 from the P300,000.00 and promised to
return the amount when needed or as soon as the case was set for hearing. However, Atty.
Alvero allegedly replied, "Akala nyo ba ay madali kunin ang pera pag nasa korte
na?" Subsequently, Barcenas discovered that Atty. Alvero did not deposit the money in
court, but instead converted and used the same for his personal needs.

Atty Alvero admitted in his letters that he has received the money. However, as of the
filing of the instant complaint, despite repeated demands, Atty. Alvero failed to return the
same.

Atty. Alvero then claimed in his answer to the complaint that he did not know
Barcenas prior to the filing of the instant complaint nor did he know that San Antonio was an
employee of Barcenas. He alleged that he came to know Barcenas only when the latter went
to him to borrow P60,000.00. Also, Atty. Alvero stressed that there was no lawyer-client
relationship between him and Barcenas. He, however, insisted that the lawyer-client
relationship between him and San Antonio still subsisted as his service was never severed by
the latter. He further emphasized that he had not breached the trust of his client, since he had,
in fact, manifested his willingness to return the said amount as long as his lawyer-client
relationship with San Antonio subsisted.

During the mandatory conference, Atty. Alvero failed to attend despite notice.

ISSUE: WON Atty Alvero violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03
of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failure to account and to return to
Barcenas the amount of Php 300,000.00

HELD:
Atty. Alvero’s failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon
numerous demands from Barcenas clearly violated the trust entrusted to him. His action is
clearly a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:

CANON 1.

A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE

LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS.

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 16.

A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS

CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client.

Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and
those of others kept by him.

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 unlawful 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.

Atty. Alvero's failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and upon
demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral
soundness, and warranted the imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the
presumption that he had difficulty in returning the money because he converted the money
for his own use, and this act constituted a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal
of public confidence in the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-342 dated July 17, 2008 of the IBP-
CBD Board of Governors, which found respondent Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero GUILTY of
gross misconduct, is AFFIRMED. He is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years
from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a
repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.

4. May an unpaid lawyer’s fee earn interest?

 - Yes, Judge. If both the client and the lawyer has decided on an agreement that upon
failure or delay of payment without justification the lawyer may, assuming there is no
overreaching on the part of the lawyer, request the client to alter the fee arrangement and
to include interest charges on unpaid lawyer’s fee. It is to note that the altered fees
including the interest charged shall be subjected to Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 4 which reads –

CANON 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. ;

Rule 138, Section 4 which reads, “An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services,
with a view of the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent
of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney.”

XVI. MEL MARI

ACTIVITY 2 OF 2
1. In Mercado v. Vitriolo the court ruled that any matter disclosed by a prospective client to a
lawyer is bound by the rule on privileged communication even if the client does not retain the
lawyer’s services or when the lawyer declines the employment. That being said, mere
engagement of a prospective client is already bound by the rules on privileged
communication. Therefore, if without the consent of the prospective client, when it is not
required by law, or when it is not judicially necessary, a lawyer shall have the duty to
preserve any information given to him by his client even if their relationship is later
terminated.

2. Generally, a lawyer is duty bound to accept all cases referred to him. A lawyer can decline
only for a serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus
curiae, or a request from the integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid (Canon 14, Rule 14.02 Code of Professional Responsibility).

3. CF Sharp Crew Management Inc. v Nicolas C. Torres

A.C. No. 10438, Sept 23, 2014

Facts:
Complainant Corporation hired Atty. Nicolas Torres, a medical doctor and a lawyer
by profession, as its Legal and Claims Manager to serve as its legal counsel and to oversee
the administration and management of legal cases and medical- related claims instituted by
seafarers against complainant’s various principals.
In several cases, complainant issued several checks in different amounts as settlement
of claims of seafarers upon the request of Torres. However, it was later discovered that
Torres never gave the checks to the seafarers and instead had them deposited at International
Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch, under Account No. 003-10-06902-1.
Complainant filed the present complaint directly to the IBP. The IBP issued an order
requiring Atty. Torres to answer, but he failed to do so. He also failed to appear in a
mandatory conference.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent be held liable for violating Canon 16 Rule 16.01 and 16.03 by
misappropriating the complainant’s funds and failing to return upon demand.
Ruling:
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for violating
the CPR. The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted the report of the Investigating
Commissioner.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Supreme Court concurs with the findings
of the IBP in its report and recommendation.
It is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of
this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
collected or received for or from his client. This is the standard laid down by Rules 16.01 and
16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR.
According to the SC, the IBP Investigating Commissioner correctly found that
complainant had duly proven its charges against respondent. In particular, complainant had
exposed respondent’s modus operandi of repeatedly requesting the issuance of checks
purportedly for the purpose of settling seafarers’ claims against the complainant’s various
principals, only to have such checks deposited to an unauthorized bank account, particularly
International Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch, under Account No. 003-10-
06902-1. It is well-settled that “when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular
purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money
was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended
purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.” This, respondent failed
to do.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law
for one (1) year. The IBP Board of Governors recommended suspension from practice of law
for two (2) years but the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty is disbarment in
consonance with the ruling Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III, the Court disbarred the
lawyer for misappropriating his client’s money intended for securing a certificate of title on
the latter’s behalf.
WHEREFORE, respondent Nicolas C. Torres is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon
1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name ordered
STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.
4. As provided in Section 24, Rule 138, an attorney is only entitled to have and recover from
his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services with a view of the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and
the professional standing of the attorney. Therefore, an attorney’s compensation shall be
deemed unreasonable if it exceeds the customary charges establish by the bar or when the
compensation is deemed to be burdensome and injustice on the part of the client with regards
to the services the latter received
XVII. PEE-JAY

1. A client confided to you that he committed an offense. However, in the arraignment, your
client entered the plea of not guilty. What will you do?

(1) Rule 15.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall
be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by
a prospective client”. In the given case, as long as all the consequences be disclosed to
him/her as result of entering a plea of not guilty, it is my duty to represent him to ensure
that my client has adequate legal representation in court and for him/her to be subjected to
a fair trial. Also, my client may expect benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by law of the land and he may expect as well from me to assert every remedy
or defense, this is in consonance to the Canon 17 of the previously-mentioned code which
states that “A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him”. It is the personal right of my client whether to plead
guilty or not. And in no case that the information confided to me by my client will be used
against him for the reason that it is my obligation to observe and be bound by the rule of
privilege communication and
of confidentiality in respect of matters disclosed to me.
In case that the plea of not guilty entered by my client may still be possibly
withdrawn, it is just proper for me to advise him to admit his guilt to mitigate the possible
punishment to be sentenced against him, to protect the public interest, and to serve the
ends of justice.

2. May a lawyer disclose to his wife about a case he is handling?

No, the lawyer cannot disclose to his wife any information about a case he is
handling because Rule 21.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
a lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.

3. A lawyer is in possession of a sum of money earmarked as litigation expenses. The client

unjustifiably refused to pay the attorney's fees. Can the lawyer exercise retaining lien over the
money?
The lawyer cannot exercise retaining lien over the money which is earmarked
as litigation expenses. The litigation expenses are considered to be legitimate debts of
his client, hence, the said expenses have preference over the payment of his retaining
lien

4. May lawyer's fees be recovered from the heirs of a deceased client who failed to pay such
fees?
The lawyer’s fees cannot be recovered from the heirs of a deceased client but
can be claimed against his estate if there’s any.
XVIII. ROBERTO

In the office set-up, the table of the lawyer where he conducts interview of clients is
situated about three (3) meters from the table of the law office secretary, is there
anything wrong in this?
Yes.
Confidentiality is the relation between lawyer and client or guardian and ward, or
between spouses, with regard to the trust that is placed in the one by the other (Black’s Law
Dictionary 7th Edition 1990, 2004).

A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the
attorney-client relation is terminated (Canon 21, CPR).

It is one of the duties of a lawyer, as provided for in the Rules of Court, to maintain
inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client
(Sec. 20(e), Rule 138, RRC).

In the given case, the three-meter distance of the table of the lawyer where he conducts
interview of clients from the table of the law office secretary is very near to discuss
confidential matter between the lawyer and a client. The lawyer shall preserve the best
interest of the client.

Submit case digest of Baens vs. Sempio, A.C. No. 10378, June 9, 2014.

Facts:

Baens engaged the services of Atty. Sempio to file a case for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage against his wife. Despite receipt of P250, 000 for legal expenses, Atty. Sempio
failed to file the petition, and it was Baens’ wife who filed the same. Atty. Sempio filed an
Answer only after the 15-day period stated in the Summons. Atty. Sempio also failed to make
an objection on the petition on the ground of improper venue as neither Baens nor his wife
were and are residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite. He never bothered to check the status of the
case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings set for the case. As a result, the
civil case was decided without Baens being able to present his evidence.

Issue:

Did Atty. Sempio violate the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 15
which provides that “A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients”, by failing his duties and responsibilities as a counsel of the
complainant ?
Held:

Yes. Atty. Sempio violated the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Canon 15
which provides that “A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients”, by failing his duties and responsibilities as a counsel of the
complainant

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients

The excuse proffered by Atty. Sempio that he did not receive any orders or notices from the
trial court is highly intolerable. In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and
case records was within his control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. The preparation
and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive
control and responsibility of the lawyer. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and
procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his client’s cause of action.

Records further disclose that he omitted to update himself of the progress of his client’s case
with the trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have
protected his client’s interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal
strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense
within the authority of law to support his client’s interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a
client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s
rights.

In this case, the respondent’s reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due
process and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients’ interests. A lawyer’s duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any
court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the
required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination even without prodding from the client or the court.(Baens v. Sempio, A.C. No.
10378, June 9, 2014).

Clearly, it cannot be doubted that the respondent violated Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon
18 of the Code which states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”

The Court hereby SUSPENDS Atty. Jonathan T. Sempio from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS
Submit case digest of Aldovino vs. Pujalte, A.C. No. 5082, February 17, 2004.

Facts:

Complainants alleged in their complaint that they are brothers and sisters and heirs of
Arcadia Nicodemus. They hired the services of respondent Atty. Pujalte, Jr. as their counsel
in Civil Case with the Regional Trial Court, of Lucena City. The suit was for specific
performance with damages to compel their sister, Loreto Nicodemus Pulumbarit, to deliver to
them their shares in the estate of their deceased mother.

The trial court rendered its decision in favor of the complainants and ordered Loreto
Nicodemus Pulumbarit to pay the said obligation for the former’s interests.

In the presence of defendant Mrs. Loreto N. Pulumbarit and respondent counsel, Branch
Clerk of Court Serdon divided the withdrawn amount into eight shares of P166,888.71 each.
He gave the defendant two shares.  Then he handed the remaining amount of P1,001,332.26,
corresponding to six shares, to respondent upon his representation that he is authorized to
receive the money and to oversee the distribution to complainants of their respective shares.

However, complainants did not receive their shares from respondent despite repeated
demands.  Thus, they engaged the services of Atty. Francisco I. Chavez who, on December
17, 1998, sent a letter to respondent demanding that the amount of P1,001,332.26 entrusted to
him by the Branch Clerk of the Court be turned over to complainants.

The respondent delivered to herein complainants was only P751, 332.26, instead of P1, 001,
332.26 because he deducted P250, 000. 00 therefrom.  He claimed that this amount is his
attorney’s fees per his agreement with Milagros Aldovino, complainants’ representative.
According to complainants, the sum of P100, 000.00 (P86, 000.00 plus P14, 000. 00) is more
than the amount of attorney’s fees agreed upon by the parties.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent lawyer Pujalte violated Canon 16 of Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.

Held:

Yes, respondent lawyer violated Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility and 16.03.

Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession and Rule 16.03
states that 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.
 In the case at bar, respondent lawyer should have complied with the above provisions.  When
complainants demanded that the sum of P1, 001, 332.26 be delivered to them, he should have
heeded promptly.  Had they not hired a lawyer and charged him with estafa, he would not
have turned over the money to them. While it may be true that he has a lien over the funds he
should have notified complainants about it in due time.

Respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyer’s lien, the sum of
P250, 000.00.  As found by IBP Commissioner, there was no agreement between him and
complainants that he could retain P250, 000.00 as attorney’s fees. In fact, he did not adduce
any proof of such agreement.  His mere allegation or claim is not proof. Obviously, his
failure to return the money to complainants upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he
misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. His act of holding on to their
money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of, integrity and propriety.

Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also
that of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte, Jr. is hereby declared guilty of violation
of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately.  He is ordered to return the
sum of P236,000.00 to complainants within five (5) days from notice.

Is the lawyer of a company the lawyer of the officers of the company?

The general rule is that no, the lawyer of the company shall serve only for the sake and
benefits of the company but when the officers of the company represent the interest of the
company and they acted not in their private capacity but rather based on the will and goal of
the company the lawyer shall render his service.

The officers of the company can utilized the service of the lawyer of the company if the
concerned activities and issues are having connection to the company.

XIX. EDNALIN
.
1. State the lawyer-client privileged communication rule

The lawyer-client privileged communication rule is contained in Section 24(b), Rule 130,
Rules of Court, which states:
 Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – The following
persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of,
or with a view to professional employment; nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;

2. May a junior partner in a law firm disclose the secrets of a client to the senior partner?

Yes. Rule 21.04, Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A
lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless
prohibited by the client.” The rule is that the professional employment of a law firm is
equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof even though only one of them is consulted;
conversely, it was provided in Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, Sept. 21, 1949, “The
employment of one member of a law firm is generally considered as employment of the law
firm.”

3. What is charging lien?

A charging lien is the right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of said judgments, which he has secured in
litigation of his client (Section 33, Rule 127; Rustia vs. Abeto, 72 Phil., 133). It is an active
lien; the lawyer is required to file a motion in court, with copy served on the adverse party, to
have a statement of his claim to such fees and disbursements charged or attach to the decision
in such case and executions thereof. It is a special lien; it can be utilized for the purpose of
collecting only the unpaid fees and disbursements of the lawyer in the case where the
judgment for a sum of money may be secured.

4.Should the lawyer provide to the court a valid reason for his withdrawal of appearance
consented to by the client?

No valid reason or explanation is necessary for the withdrawal of the lawyer’s

appearance consented to by the client. Sec. 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that,
“An attorney may retire at any time from any action or proceeding, by the written consent of
his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party.”

XX. MAE HAZEL

I. A client discreetly reveals to his lawyer a plan to kill somebody. Can the lawyer disclose such
secret?
Yes. Canon 21.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not reveal
the confidences or secrets of his clients except: (b) when required by law.
Professional communication is not privileged when such communications are made for an
unlawful purpose or are not within the scope of lawful employment. As such, client’s plan to kill
somebody is an announcement of intention of a client to commit a crime. Thus, not within the
scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer.
II. A lawyer is interviewed by the SWS Survey regarding the income of his client. May the
lawyer reveal such data?
No. Canon 21.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not,
without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside agency
seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or
any similar purpose. Income of his client is included in the privilege matters. Thus, the lawyer
has the duty to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client.
III. May a lawyer borrow properties from his client?
No. Canon 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not borrow
money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or
by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend a money to a client except when, in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client. Thus, a lawyer has a fiduciary relation to his client that he must observe with utmost good
faith, loyalty, fidelity and avoid temptation and taking advantage of the lawyer over his client.
IV. State the procedure in the withdrawal of appearance.
Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for a good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances." Also, Canon
22, Rule 22.01 and 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility set the guidelines for the
withdrawal of services of a lawyer.
Thus, a lawyer can withdraw from the case for a good cause without the client's consent but with
the approval of the court. The lawyer must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve a
copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least 3 days before the date set for
hearing. He should present his petition well in advance of the trial of the action to enable the
client to secure the service of another lawyer. Until there is a withdraw of record, he must appear
on the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation. After order of permitting withdrawal, the
client shall be notified by the withdrawing attorney of the effective date of the withdrawal and all
pleadings, notices or other papers may be served on the party until the new counsel enters an
appearance.

XXI. IRISH

1. Define Conflict of Interest

There is a conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or
more opposing parties. It refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients in the
same action or in a totally unrelated case and it also pertains to those in which the adverse party
against whom the attorney appears is his former client in a matter, which was been related,
directly or indirectly, to the controversy.
Thus, a lawyer who represents one party in a case and at the same time represents the opposing
party, or legal problems of the opposing party, whether the cases are related or not, violates the
rule against representation of conflicting interests.
2. Case digest of Alcantara vs. De Vera, A.C. 5859, November 23, 2010

FACTS:
The respondent, Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is a member of the Bar and the former counsel of
Rosario P. Mercado in a civil and administrative case filed in Davao. Pursuant to a favorable
decision, the respondent garnished the bank deposits of his client, but did not turn over its
proceeds. Rosario demanded the turnover of the proceeds of the garnishment, but he refused
claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge and the remaining would be his
attorney’s fees. Then, Rosario filed a disbarment case against him, in which the IBP governors
found him guilty of infidelity and the custody and handling of client’s funds. Therefore, he was
been suspended for 1 year.
After the release of the IBP resolution, he filed series of cases against the Mercado family
except George Mercado, against the family corporation, the corporation’s accountant, the judge
who ruled against the reopening of the case and against the Chairman and members of the IBP
Board of Governors who voted for his suspension. The complainants alleged that the respondent
committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate
language when he filed several against their family members, lawyers and Family Corporation.
They also alleged that his primary purpose in filing several cases was to harass and exact revenge
for the one-year suspension. In the defense of the respondent, he denied committed barratry and
exploitation of the problems of his client’ family by instigating George Mercado to file suits; he
argued that the suit was based on facts and in good faith. He also denied forum shopping; he
argued that he was only exhausting the remedies allowed by law. Moreover, he denied using
intemperate, vulgar, or unprofessional language. In contrary, the complainants used intemperate
and vulgar language in accusing him of “extorting from Rosario shocking and unconscionable
attorney’s fees.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera should be administratively liable for
violation of Rule 21.02 of Canon 21 of Code of Professional Responsibility by filing several
frivolous and unfounded lawsuits against his former client.
HELD:
YES, the respondent should be administratively liable for violation of Rule 21.02 of Canon
21 because Canon 21 states, “A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client to
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.” In addition, Rule 21.02 states, “A lawyer
shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
A Lawyer responsibility is to assist in the proper administration of justice. He should avoid any
unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent the realization of a speedy,
efficient, impartial, correct, and inexpensive adjudication of cases. However, in this case, the
respondent filed cases, which were previously been dismissed. There is nothing ethically remiss
in a lawyer who files numerous cases as long he had done it in good faith and without ill motive
but in the case at bar, the cases filed by respondent were in conspiracy with his former client’s
family member. The respondent being the former counsel of the complainants had used his
acquired information, such as the structure and operation of the family corporation, private
documents, and other pertinent facts and figures to instigate his former client’s member of family
to file several frivolous and unfounded suits against a former client to whom he owes loyalty and
fidelity.
In conclusion, the respondent had clearly violated the Rule 21.02 of Canon 12 of Code of
Professional Responsibility because even though the attorney-client relationship was been
terminated between the respondent and the complainant. He should preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client and not used the acquired information to instigate his client’s family member
to file frivolous and unfounded several suits to exact revenge to his former client. Therefore, the
respondent was been disbarred.

3. Case Digest of Rangwani vs. Dino, 5454, Nov. 23, 2004

FACTS
This case is an administrative complaint filed against Atty. Ramon S. Diño by Carmelina Y.
Rangwani. In her complaint, the complainant alleged that she was befriended by the respondent
and because of latter’s status in the community as a good lawyer and businessman, she was
convinced to part with him the title to a parcel of land located in Dasmariñas, Cavite. After five
months, the she demanded to return the title to her from the respondent who promised to return it.
After ten months, the respondent was nowhere to found. She was able to locate the respondent,
who transferred in his residence to Makati City. In their confrontation, the respondent could give
back the title but he offered to buy the property instead. Thus, the respondent issued three checks
between May to July of 1999 worth 50,000 pesos. Unfortunately, the checks bounced for the
reason of closed account. In the same year, she filed Criminal Case for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 against the respondent.
On August 2001, the court issued a resolution requiring him to comment on the complaint but
failed to do so. On November 2001, the respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court
to Admit Comment and for a Formal Hearing. He barred that the resolution requiring him to
comment was send to his parent’s residence. He said that he was not aware about the disbarment
complaint but admitted that there were cases previously filed by complainant against him. He
also said that he has been a lawyer for the past twenty-three years and it was the first and only
case filed against him before the Court and in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Furthermore,
he was a working student, took the 1977 bar exams, landed No. 13 with an average of 88.88%
and he said that his title as a lawyer is the only legacies he can leave to his children. Therefore,
he prayed to have a chance to hear formally. The court granted a Formal Hearing to the
respondent and the case of disbarment was been referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Ramon S. Diño should be administratively liable for
violation of Rule 16.04 of the Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility by borrowing the
title of land of complainant and issuing a bouncing check.

HELD
YES, the respondent should be administratively liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because Canon 16 states, “A lawyer shall hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” While, Rule
16.04 states, “A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice; he has to advance necessary expenses in
a legal matter he is handling for client.”
The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses
or takes advantages of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client collected
for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported
and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be comingled with his own
or be used by him. On the case at bar, the respondent gravely abused the confidence that
complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did not return the borrowed title,
which he promised to return and did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of the complainant’s
property. He also compelled the complainants to go to court for the recovery of the proceeds of
the sale and made the complainant to spend money, time and energy. Worse, he planned the
agony of the respondent and never intended to pay his obligation because he issued three checks
in exchange for the title but bounced because of closed account. In conclusion, the respondent
had clearly violated the Rule 16.04 of Canon 16 of Code of Professional Responsibility because
he borrowed the title of the land then used it in his personal gain, failed to return it despite of
demands and issued three bouncing checks that indicates his unfitness to the trust and confidence
given to him. Therefore, the court suspended him for one year.

4. What court sanction imposed on a lawyer who continues to represent a party who has
terminated already the services of such counsel?

The effect of the termination of service of an attorney to his client is his authority to represent
a client ceases upon his dismissal. Therefore, continuing representation of an attorney in behalf
of the party even though he was been terminated is an unauthorized practice of law. The attorney
who is guilty of unauthorized appearance may be cited as contempt as an officer of the court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions. Moreover, Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rule of
Court states, “A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so.”

XXII. CATHERINE

1. In a case of A vs. B, can a lawyer represent both the parties in the said case?

No.

As a rule, a lawyer cannot represent diverse interests. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 states
that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” Prohibition against representation of
conflicting interest applies where the conflicting interest arise with respect to the same
general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be. It applies
although the lawyer’s intention and motives were honest and he acted in good faith.
However, representation of conflicting interest may be allowed where the parties consent
to the representation after full disclosure of facts.
 Thus, it is highly improper to represent both sides of an issue if no proper consent was
granted by the concerned parties and that circumstances will give rise to representation of
conflicting of interests.

2. Case digest A.C. 6740 SENIOR MARKETING CORPORATION vs. BOLINAS

ANSWER:
SENIOR MARKETING CORPORATION vs. BOLINAS
A. C. No. 6740 February 26, 2014

FACTS:

Atty. Aquilino Bolinas acting as Senior Marketing Corporation’s counsel from 1995 to
2002, he had access to the documents related to the cases he handled; that due to business
reversal and financial constraints, complainant terminated his services as retainer; that his
termination irked him and in obvious vindictiveness, he accepted cases filed against
complainant by its employees; and that Atty. Bolinas' act of accepting the cases and in
representing complainant's employees in a case filed against complainant without its
consent violated his oath of office.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Bolinas was allowed to accept the case of complainant's employees
one year after his termination

RULING:

No. The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client except where
there is an express consent from the former client as provided by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 “A
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.“
Atty. Bolinas clearly violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests
when he accepted the cases filed against complainant by its employees notwithstanding the
fact that he was previously the retained counsel of the complainant and that the latter
consulted him on the possibility of filing complaints against its erring employees and had
access to documents material to their prosecution. Atty. Bolinas is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS with a warning.

3. A lawyer “sells” a case. Is this proper?

ANSWER:
 No.
The rule of ethics prohibits lawyers from voluntarily revealing or using to his benefit or
to that of a third person, to the disadvantage of the client, the said communication unless
the client consents thereto or or after his death, by his heir or legal representative or under
circumstances when communication is not privileged.

4. What is the rationale behind the lawyer-client privileged communication rule?

ANSWER:
A privileged communication is one that refers to information transmitted by voluntary
act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means of which, in so far
as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the
purpose for which it was given.
Under Rule 15.02, Canon 15 “A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.” The reason
for this rule to make the prospective client free to discuss whatever he wishes with the
lawyer without fear that what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him, and
for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the prospective client.
The privilege applies even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer
or the latter declines the employment

XXIII. FREDERICK
1. Two cases - A vs B; B vs A. The cases are related. Can a lawyer represent A in the First
case and B in the second case?

A: Rule 15.03 of Canon of Professional Responsibility provides that:

A lawyer shall not represent a conflicting interest except by written consent of all
concerned given after the full disclosure of the facts.

In the case given, said lawyer when he represented A in the first case and B in the second
case, in which cases are related, will give rise to conflicting interest.

Therefore, without the written consent of both A and B after the full disclosure of the
facts, said lawyer cannot represent them both because of the presence of conflicting
interest.
 2. Is a lawyer still prohibited from disclosing the secrets of a client if the lawyer-client
relationship has been long terminated?

A: Canon 21 provides the general rule that “a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and
secrets of his client even after the attorney client relation is terminated.”

Exceptions as provided by Canon 21.01 are:

a. When authorized by the client after the acquainting him of consequences of the
disclosure;
b. When required by law;
c. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees, associates, or
by judicial action.

3. True of False. Extraordinary diligence is required of a lawyer in serving his client?

A: False. What the Canon 18 of Canon of Professional Responsibility requires is

diligence of a good father of a family.

4. What will you do if you find that you cannot honestly put up a valid defense in a criminal
case but your accused-client insists to proceed to litigation?

A: In a criminal case, the accused enjoy the presumption of innocence. But since in my
honest assessment of the case, I cannot validly make a defense for my client, I will, with
the consent of my client, obtain a collaborating counsel who is competent on the criminal
case face by my client.

XXIV. JAMES

XXV. PRINCESS

1. In a case of A vs. B, can a lawyer represent A, while his spouse, also a lawyer, represents
B?
Yes, provided that the lawyer will disclose to his client his relationship to the lawyer of the
adverse party. Rule 15.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer, in
conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter
would involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform
the prospective client.” The issue here is that whether the relationship between the lawyers will
or reasonably may affect the lawyer’s ability to exercise professional judgement because of his
own financial, professional or personal interests. Since the nature of relationship between the
lawyers clearly affect the likelihood of there being an impact on the ability of the lawyers
involved to exercise their professional judgement, an informed written consent of each related
lawyer’s client should be obtained. Rule 15.03 states that “A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.”
2. A client wilfully refuses to pay the lawful fees of a lawyer. Is it improper for a lawyer to
immediately sue the client?
Yes. Rule 20.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.” A lawyer should avoid controversies with clients
concerning compensation so far as shall be compatible with self-respect and with his right to
receive a reasonable recompense for his services, and he should resort to law suits with clients
only to prevent injustice, imposition or fraud. In the case of Cueto v. Atty. Jimenez, Jr., A.C. NO.
5798, January 20, 2005, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer should always remind himself that
the legal profession is imbued with public service. Remuneration is a mere incident. And
although the Court acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must
never resort to judicial action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the
profession. Hence, it is improper for a lawyer to immediately sue the client.
3. Submit case digest of De Juan vs. Baria, 5817, May 27, 2004.
EMMA V. DE JUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III, Respondent
A.C. NO. 5817, May 27, 2004
QUISUMBING, J.:
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Oscar R. Baria III, as her counsel, negligently
failed to file motion for reconsideration of the decision dated September 24, 2001 of the NLRC
in her behalf. The complainant avers that she was hired by Triple AAA as packer on probation
status for six months in its Packing Department. She claims that she was terminated without
notice nor explanation so she filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) against the company. On December 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in
favor of complainant. Triple AAA appealed to the NLRC. In a decision promulgated on
September 24, 2001, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared there was no illegal
dismissal. Complainant blamed respondent for the reversal. When she asked the respondent what
they should do, respondent answered, Paano iyan iha e hindi ako marunong gumawa ng Motion
for Reconsideration.
In his Comment, respondent explained that in October 2001, the NLRC rendered its decision
reversing the Labor Arbiter. By this time, he confronted complainant for lying to him about her
employment with Triple AAA and told her that because of her lies there was a possibility she
could lose the appeal. He advised complainant to get a more experienced lawyer for her appeal
because as a new lawyer he was not confident he could handle her appeal. Thereafter,
complainant no longer contacted him and at some time, he even had to ask her whereabouts from
her relatives. In its Resolution dated August 30, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors found
respondent guilty of negligence in handling the aforecited labor case and recommended that
respondent be suspended from practicing law for three months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the decision of the
NLRC violates Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
Yes. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.”
The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration of the
NLRC such that the said decision eventually had become final and executory. Respondent does
not refute this. His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for reconsideration is lame
and unacceptable. After complainant had expressed an interest to file a motion for
reconsideration, it was incumbent upon counsel to diligently return to his books and re-
familiarize himself with the procedural rules for a motion for reconsideration. Filing a motion for
reconsideration is not a complicated legal task.
We are however, not unaware that respondent had been forthright and candid with his client
when he warned her of his lack of experience as a new lawyer. We are also not unaware that he
had advised complainant to get a new lawyer. However, his candor cannot absolve him.
Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains
counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from the case, he cannot
just do so and leave his client out in the cold. An attorney may only retire from the case either by
a written consent of his client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.
Respondent did not comply with these obligations.
WHEREFORE, respondent lawyer Oscar R. Baria III is hereby FINED in the amount of
P5,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of this or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
4. Is a law student practitioner covered by the lawyer-client privileged communication
rule?
Yes. Rule 138-A, Section 6 (b) of Rules of Court states that one of the duties of a law
student practitioner is be prohibited from using information acquired in one's capacity
as a law student practitioner for personal or commercial gain. Further, Rule 138-A,
Section 6 (d) of Rules of Court states that a law student practitioner should strictly
observe the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 15.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall be bound by the rule
on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.” Observance of the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer begins even as a law
student. Hence, a law student practitioner is covered by the lawyer-client privileged
communication.

XXVI. MYRNA

1. The accused posted surety bond referred to by his counsel. The owner of the surety company
offered a percentage of the premium already paid by the accused to the lawyer. Should the lawyer
accept it?
NO. Generally, fees shall be received from the client only except when the client has full
knowledge and approval that his lawyer may receive compensation form other person other than
him (client). Receiving percentage of the premium already paid by the client without the latter’s
knowledge and consent would constitute violation of Rule 20. 03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that “a lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of
the client, accept any fee, reward, cost, commission, interest, rebate of forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than
the client.
2. Case Digest of Justo vs. Galing, A.C. 6174, November 26, 2011
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro-Justo against Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing.
Complainant Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she engaged the services of respondent
Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W.
Koa (Ms. Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to
Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks. Respondent advised complainant to wait for the
lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
On 10 July 2003, complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
On 27 July 2003, she received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by respondent for and
on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter’s daughter Karen Torralba
(Ms. Torralba). Further, on 8 August 2003, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before
the prosecutor of Manila.
Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
In his Comment, respondent denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a
demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long
standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant.
He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their
understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged
that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Año.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Galing violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
YES. Atty. Galing violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
states that, “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts”, by representing conflicting interest. Atty.
Galing had an existing lawyer-client relationship with Ms. Castro-Justo as established
the moment complainant (Ms. Castro-Justo) sought legal advice from respondent (Atty. Galing)
regarding the dishonored checks. The drafting of the demand letter by the respondent further
affirmed such relationhip. However, respondent still acted as the counsel of Ms. Koa, the
opponent of Ms. Catro-Justo in the criminal case filed by her. Hence, Atty. Galing is representing
conflicting interest when he had a lawyer-client relationship with the two opposing parties (Ms.
Castro-Justo and Ms. Koa)
3. Is the senior partner of a law firm liable for the incompetence of an associate?
YES. An associate in under the supervision of the senior partner, he carries out the day-to-
day legal work for their clients as directed by the partner. While all associates are generally
expected to take care of the work required by their clients without constant supervision, there
should always be more experienced lawyers available from whom to seek guidance.
4. May a lawyer be held liable for violating lawyer-client privileged communication rule when he
discloses the client’s love interest?
YES. Canon 21 of the CPR provides that, “a lawyer shall not reveal the confidences and
secrets of his clients except: (a)When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure; (b) When required by law; (c) When necessary to collect his fees
or to defend himself, his employees or associated or by judicial actions”. The act of disclosing
the love interest of his client to another constitutes a violation of Canon 21

XXVII. ZYRENE

1. Case Digest: PEREZ vs. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE [A.C. No. 6160 March 30, 2006]

FACTS: Complainant Nestor Perez, barangay captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines

Sur charged respondent Atty. Danilo de la Torre with misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer for representing conflicting interests. Respondent denied the accusations that (a) he made
representations that he could secure the freedom of detainees Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avila,
two of several suspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, if they sign the prepared
extrajudicial confessions; (b) unknown to the two accused, he was representing the heirs of one
of the murder victims Resurreccion Barrios; (c) on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions,
cases were filed against them, including complainant who was implicated as the mastermind in
the criminal activities. Respondent explained that Avila sought his assistance in drafting his
extrajudicial confession, and that he apprised Avila of his constitutional rights and of the
possibility that he might be utilized as a state-witness. Only after he was convinced that Ilo was
not under undue compulsion did he assist Ilo in executing the extrajudicial confession. The IBP
found that at the time that Atty. de la Torre was representing the said two accused, he was also
representing the interest of the victim’s family as declared by the victim’s daughter, Vicky. She
even admitted that she was present when Atty. de la Torre met with and advised Avila and Ilo on
one occasion.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing conflicting interests i.e. representing the accused and the interest of the victim’s
family

RULING: Yes. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles
of public policy and good taste. The nature of lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers to also 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. Respondent
explained that it was the two accused who sought his assistance in executing their extrajudicial
confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to act as counsel. Rule 15.03 of the CPR
prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Clearly, his representation of opposing clients
in the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients. It is unsettling
that he assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions knowing fully well that
he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims. He should have exercised his better
judgment before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. Atty. de la Torre is SUSPENDED for
THREE YEARS from the practice of law.

2. A client will pay Php1Million pesos in the handling of a case as contingent attorney's fees. A
lawyer accepted the engagement, but withdrawn later. Another lawyer comes in. How much,
if any, should the lawyers get as attorney's fees assuming the case is won?
Answer: Both lawyers must be paid reasonable compensation depending on the legal services
they have respectively extended to the client on the basis of quantum meruit, since the first
lawyer, assuming to have withdrawn for a justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion.

3. A party lost his case due to negligence of his lawyer. Can the case be reopened and re-
litigated with a new counsel?
Answer: It depends. For the case to be reopened and re-litigated by a new counsel, the
negligence of the lawyer must be that which amounts to a deprivation of due process for the
client or results to serious injustice.

4. A lawyer is the counsel of AAA in a case of AAA vs. BBB. The case was terminated.
Thereafter, AAA terminated the lawyer-client relationship. Can the same lawyer represent
BBB in the case of BBB vs. AAA, which subsequent case is totally unrelated with the first
case?
Answer: No. The rule on conflict of interests prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in
the same action or in totally unrelated cases. Representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests,
in the absence of the written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.

XXVIII. JENNIFER

1. What is lawyer-referral system?

 A lawyer-referral system refers to a network of lawyers, wherein it connects people in need
of lawyers with its participating attorneys. A potential client who contacts a lawyer referral
service is directed to a lawyer who practices in the area of law that is most appropriate for their
situation.
2. Submit case digest of Orola v. Ramos, A.C 9860, September 11, 2013
Facts:
Complainants Josephine, Myrna, Manuel, (all surnamed Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-Belarga
(Mary Angelyn), and Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip (Marjorie) are the children of the late Trinidad
Laserna-Orola (Trinidad), married to Emilio Q. Orola (Emilio).
Meanwhile, complainant Karen Orola (Karen) is the daughter of Maricar Alba-Orola (Maricar)
and Antonio L. Orola (Antonio), the deceased brother of the above-named complainants and the
son of Emilio.
In the settlement of Trinidad’s estate, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City,
Branch 18 (RTC) and docketed as Special Proceeding No. V-3639, the parties were represented
by the following: (a) Atty. Roy M. Villa (Atty. Villa) as counsel for and in behalf of Josephine,
Myrna, Manuel, Mary Angelyn, and Marjorie (Heirs of Trinidad); (b) Atty. Ely F. Azarraga, Jr.
(Atty. Azarraga) as counsel for and in behalf of Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of the late
Antonio (Heirs of Antonio), with respondent as collaborating counsel; and (c) Atty. Aquiliana
Brotarlo as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio, the initially appointed administrator of Trinidad’s
estate. In the course of the proceedings, the Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio moved for
the removal of Emilio as administrator and, in his stead, sought the appointment of the latter’s
son, Manuel Orola, which the RTC granted in an Order dated September 20, 2007 (RTC Order).
Subsequently, or on October 10, 2007, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating
counsel for Emilio in the same case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order.
Due to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed the instant disbarment complaint
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), claiming that he violated: (a) Rule 15.03 of the
Code, as he undertook to represent conflicting interests in the subject case; and (b) Section 20(e),
Rule 138 of the Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his clients,
the Heirs of Antonio. Complainants further claimed that while Maricar, the surviving spouse of
Antonio and the mother of Karen, consented to the withdrawal of respondent’s appearance, the
same was obtained only on October 18, 2007, or after he had already entered his appearance for
Emilio on October 10, 2007. In this accord, respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the
affected heirs and, as such, was not able to obtain their written consent as required under the
Rules.
For his part, respondent refuted the abovementioned charges, contending that he never appeared
as counsel for the Heirs of Trinidad or for the Heirs of Antonio. He pointed out that the records
of the case readily show that the Heirs of Trinidad were represented by Atty. Villa, while the
Heirs of Antonio were exclusively represented by Atty. Azarraga. He averred that he only
accommodated Maricar’s request to temporarily appear on her behalf as their counsel of record
could not attend the scheduled June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings and that his appearances
thereat were free of charge. In fact, he obtained Maricar’s permission for him to withdraw from
the case as no further communications transpired after these two hearings. Likewise, he consulted
Maricar before he undertook to represent Emilio in the same case. He added that he had no
knowledge of the fact that the late Antonio had other heirs and, in this vein, asserted that no
information was disclosed to him by Maricar or their counsel of record at any instance. Finally,
he clarified that his representation for Emilio in the subject case was more of a mediator, rather
than a litigator, and that since no settlement was forged between the parties, he formally
withdrew his appearance on December 6, 2007. In support of his assertions, respondent
submitted the affidavits of Maricar and Atty. Azarraga relative to his limited appearance and his
consultation with Maricar prior to his engagement as counsel for Emilio.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests by filing an entry of
appearance as collaborating counsel of Emilio in the same case where he represented Maricar?
Ruling:
Yes. Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN
ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in
the same action or on totally unrelated cases.
There is 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 lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those
in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. 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.
Records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only for Maricar as claimed by
him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio in Special Proceeding No. V-3639. In the course thereof, the
Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as administrator for
having committed acts prejudicial to their interests. Hence, when respondent proceeded to
represent Emilio for the purpose of seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case,
he clearly worked against the very interest of the Heirs of Antonio — particularly, Karen — in
violation of the above-stated rule.
Respondent’s justification that no confidential information was relayed to him cannot fully
exculpate him for the charges against him since the rule on conflict of interests, as enunciated in
Hornilla, provides an absolute prohibition from representation with respect to opposing parties in
the same case. In other words, a lawyer cannot change his representation from one party to the
latter’s opponent in the same case. That respondent’s previous appearances for and in behalf of
the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly accommodation cannot equally be given any credence
since the aforesaid rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if
the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.
Neither can respondent’s asseveration that his engagement by Emilio was more of a mediator
than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members render the
rule inoperative. In fact, even on that assertion, his conduct is likewise improper since Rule
15.04, Canon 15 of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the written consent of all
concerned before he may act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Irrefragably, respondent failed in this respect as the records show that respondent was remiss in
his duty to make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as Emilio’s counsel to all the
Heirs of Antonio — particularly, Karen — and equally secure their express written consent
before consummating the same. Besides, it must be pointed out that a lawyer who acts as such in
settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it. Accordingly, for respondent’s violation
of the aforestated rules, disciplinary sanction is warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely.

3. A lawyer has not been practicing tax law. Should he decline representing a client in a
tax case?
Before accepting a case, the lawyer should determine first whether he has the required degree of
academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case after taking into consideration the
surrounding circumstances of the case.
If after studying the case, it seems that he does not possess the required competence and
diligence to properly defend the client, then he should decline representing the client. (Canon 18,
CPR)
He is therefore directed not to take legal services which he knows or should know he is not
qualified or competent to render except if his client consents, the lawyer can take as collaborating
counsel, another lawyer who is competent on the matter.
4. What is the rationale against representing conflicting interest?
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.

The prohibition against conflict of interest rests on the following five (5) rationales:

First, the law seeks to assure clients that their lawyers will represent them with undivided loyalty.
A client is entitled to be represented by a lawyer whom the client can trust. Instilling such
confidence is an objective important in itself.

Second, the prohibition against conflicts of interest seeks to enhance the effectiveness of legal
representation. To the extent that a conflict of interest undermines the independence of the
lawyer's professional judgment or inhibits a lawyer from working with appropriate vigor in the
client's behalf, the client's expectation of effective representation could be compromised.

Third, a client has a legal right to have the lawyer safeguard confidential information pertaining
to it. Preventing the use of confidential information against the interests of the client to benefit
the lawyer's personal interest, in aid of some other client, or to foster an assumed public purpose,
is facilitated through conflicts rules that reduce the opportunity for such abuse.

Fourth, conflicts rules help ensure that lawyers will not exploit clients, such as by inducing a
client to make a gift or grant in the lawyer's favour.

Finally, some conflict-of-interest rules protect interests of the legal system in obtaining adequate
presentations to tribunals. In the absence of such rules, for example, a lawyer might appear on
both sides of the litigation, complicating the process of taking proof and compromise adversary
argumentation.

The spirit behind this rule is that the client's confidence once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a
lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which
the lawyer previously represented the client
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer
would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former
clients
It is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It behooves lawyers not only to
keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery 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.
The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an
interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The client's confidence once
reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment. Even after the
severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything which will injuriously affect his
former client in any matter in which he previously represented him nor should he disclose or use
any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation.
ooo end ooo

XXIX. CHARLENE
1. Can a lawyer become an ADR provider between disputing parties?
ANSWER:
Yes. A lawyer may become an ADR provider between disputing parties if there is witten
consent of all concerned as what Rule 15.04 of the Code of Profesisonal Responsibilty provides.
The lawyer may act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes once he obtains
witten consent of parties concerned.

2. Dalisay v Mauricio, AC. 5655, April 22, 2005

FACTS:
Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant, enaged the services of Atty. Melanio Mauricio,
respondent in Civil Case no. 00-0044. Notwithstanding the receipt of Php 56,000 from the
complainant as attorney’s fees, respondent never rendered legal services. As a result, she
terminated the lawyer-client relationship and asked for the return of her money but respondent
refused. The complainant filed a case against the respondent and the Supreme Court found the
respondent guilty of malpractice and groos miscounduct and suspended him for six months.
Upon learning of his conviction, respondent verified the statues of Case No. 00-044 and
found out that tax declarations and the title submitted by the compladinant are not official
records. He then, filed a case against the complainant for falsification of evidence and filed a
motion for reconsideration on the case filed against him claiming that the complainant never
engaged his services for Case No 00-044 but only for two separate petitions, thus there is no
lawyer-client relation between them.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there is a lawyer-client relationship between the complainant and the
respondent?
2. Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted?

HELD:
1. YES. The court explained that once a lawyer accepts money from a client, a lawyer-client
relationship is established. The moment Atty. Mauricio asked for fees and received it, the same
relationship had been present between them.
 2. NO. The Court explained that assuming the client really did offer falsified evidence, it
will not be sufficient to exonerate the respondent because Rule 19.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of representation, perpatrated a fraud upon a person or a tribunal, shall promptly call upon
his client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such
client in accordance to the rules of court.
The respondent did not follow said cannon and he learned about the alleged falsification
after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship. Obviously, in filing falsification charges
against complainant, respondent was motivated by vindictiveness.
3. A lawyer is expert in criminal law. He accepted a criminal case. Should the lawyer still
conduct research?
Yes. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence. The code mentions that a lawyer must assist the client not
only with competence, which the lawyer already has being an expert in criminal law, but also
with diligence, meaning exerting careful and persistent effort in the case.
Furthermore, the same code also provides under Rule 18.02 that a lawyer shall not handle
any legal matter without adequate preparation. Such adequate preparation in the case a bar
involves research.
If the lawyer does not conduct research in this case, although already an expert in criminal
law, he is falling short of the code’s requirement of representing his client with zeal, thus
vioalting the Code of Professional Responsibility.
4. A lawyer is the counsel of AAA in AAA vs BBB. The case was finished. AAA terminated
the lawyer-client relationship. Can the same lawyer become the counsel of BBB in a
subsequent related case of BBB vs AAA?
Generally, under the Code of Professional responsibilty, a lawyer cannot represent
conflicting interests and this applies even though the attorney’s intention and motives are in good
faith but if the lawyer obtains written consent of all the parties concerned after full disclosure of
the facts, the same may be allowed.
In Nakpil v Valdez, the Supreme Court stated that disclosure alone is not enough for the
clients must give their informed consent.to such representation. The lawyer must clearly explain
to his clients the possible adverse effects in a language and manner that they understood.

XXX. JOSEPH

1. A lawyer is appointed by the probate court as the executor of the estate of a deceased person.
The estate is embroiled in several disputes. Is the lawyer prohibited from assessing attorney’s
fees from the estate in such cases that he will handle?
Answer:
No, the lawyer appointed as executor is not prohibited. Attorney’s fees and costs for estate cases
would depend on such factors as the amount or extent of the estate, where the properties are
located, the current status of the titles involved, the creditors of the estate, among others.

2. Submit case digest of Orola vs. Ramos, A.C. 9860, Sept.11, 2013.
FACTS: The respondent acted as a collaborating counsel with Atty. Ely Azarraga, J.r. in
representing Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of late Antonio L. Orola (Heirs of Antonio) in
the settlement of the estate of Trinidad Laserna-Orola. The Heirs of Antonio, together with the
Heirs of Trinidad, who were the complainants in the disbarment case, moved for the removal of
Emilio Orola, the adverse party, as the administrator of Trinidad’s estate. Subsequently,
respondent appeared as a collaborating counsel for Emilio, the opposing party, in the same case.
Due to this, complainants filed a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on the ground that the respondent violated the prohibition against representing
conflicting interests under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent contended that he never appeared as counsel for the complainants. He merely
represented Maricar temporarily at the latter’s request due to the unavailability of Atty. Azarraga
and his service was free of charge. He also contended that he consulted Maricar before he
undertook to represent Emilio in the same case and that no information was disclosed to him by
Maricar or Atty. Azarraga at any instance.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of

Rule 15.03 of the Code.

HELD: The Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. 
The above-cited rule is clear and unequivocal that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose that of a former client in any manner, whether
they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases.
Three tests were provided in the Hornilla v. Salunat ruling in determining whether or not
there is conflict of interests: “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.”
Second, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the
attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first
client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Lastly, 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.
In the instant case, records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel not only
for Maricar as claimed by him, but for all the Heirs of Antonio. The Heirs of Trinidad and the
Heirs of Antonio succeeded in removing Emilio as administrator for having committed acts
prejudicial to their interests. However, the respondent clearly violated the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests when he proceeded to represent Emilio for the purpose of
seeking his reinstatement as administrator in the same case.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is hereby held GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future will be dealt with more severely.

3. What is the lawyer’s communication duty?

Answer:
The lawyer’s communication duty is embodied in Canon 15 Rule 15.02 of Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

4. A person is the retained lawyer of AAA and BBB. In a case of AAA vs. BBB, is there an
instance in which the said lawyer can become the counsel of AAA?
Answer:
None, it would be a violation then of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in
the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of
public policy and good taste. It befits lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery 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.
Representation of conflicting interest may be allowed only if the parties consent to it after full
disclosure of facts. Full disclosure of facts alone is not enough. There must be a written and
informed consent on the part of the clients. However in the case of Natan vs. Capule 91 Phil 640,
it has been held that a lawyer may represent a subsequent client against a former client when the
subject matter of the present controversy is not related directly or indirectly to the subject matter
of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. He must however fully
disclose the facts to the new client.