Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R.

Llamas

A.C. No. 4749; 20 January 2000

Facts:

Soliman M. Santos, Jr., a member of the bar, sent a letter-complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment
of bar membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. He alleged that Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas for a number of years had not indicated the proper Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Official Receipt Numbers and data (date and place of issuance) in his pleadings – he only
indicated "IBP Rizal 259060," but he had been using this for at least three years already. This matter was being
brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a duly admitted member of the bar "who is in
good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law."

Petitioner attached to the letter-complaint, among others, pleadings on several dates, bearing, at the end
thereof, what appears to be respondent’s signature above his name, address and the receipt number “IBP Rizal
259060”. Also, complainant filed a certification dated March 18, 1997, by the then president of the IBP, Atty. Ida R.
Macalinao-Javier, that respondent’s “last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then, he has no paid or
remitted any amount to cover his membership fess up to the present.

In his comment, Atty. Llamas claimed that since 1992, he publicly made it clear in his Income Tax Return
that he had only a limited practice of law and his principal occupation is farming. Moreover, he claimed that being a
senior citizen since 1992, he is legally exempt under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7432 in the payment of taxes.
Thus, he honestly believed in view of his detachment from a total practice of law, but only a limited practice, the
subsequent payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption. Nonetheless, despite such
honest belief, he was ready to tender such fulfillment on payment (even with interests, charges and surcharges and
penalties).

Issue:

(1) WON respondent is exempt from paying membership dues.

(2) WON respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

(1) No. The Court ruled that respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does
not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4, grants senior citizens
"exemption from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does
not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
for that year," the exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues. Respondent's
failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed merited the
most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to pay his
dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, the Court believed that the penalty of one year
suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dies, whichever is later, was appropriate.

Rule 139-A provides:

 Sec. 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as
the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A 􀁀xed sum equivalent to
ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled
members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule,
default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

(2) Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the
courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:

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

CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

Jayne Y. Yu v. Renato Lazaro Bondal

A.C. No. 5534; 17 January 2005

Facts:

Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal (respondent) stands charged in a complaint filed by Jayne Y. Yu (complainant) for
gross negligence and violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from
his alleged failure to attend to the five cases she referred to him and to return, despite demand, the amount of
₱51,716.54 she has paid him.

In the Retainer Agreement dated March 30, 2000, complainant agreed to pay respondent the amount of
₱200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the five cases, with an Appearance Fee of ₱1,500.00 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, in the amount of ₱30,000.00 and ₱21,716.54, respectively.

Petitioner contends that despite receipt of above-said amounts, respondent failed to file a case against Swire
Realty and Development Corp; due to respondent’s negligence, the case for estafa against Lourdes Fresnoza Boon
was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City and was not timely appealed to the Department of
Justice; respondent negligently failed to inform complainant, before she left for abroad, to leave the necessary
documents for purposes of the preliminary investigation of the case filed against Julie Teh before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Makati City, which case was eventually dismissed; and respondent compelled her to settle the
two cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Mona Lisa San Juan and Elizabeth Chan Ong under unfair and
unreasonable terms.
 Respondent thus demanded from respondent, by letter, for the return of all the records she had entrusted
him bearing on the subject cases. Respondent did return but only the records bearing on the estafa case against
Lourdes Fresnoza Boon and the B.P. Blg. 22 case against Mona Lisa San Juan.

Complainant through counsel thus demanded, by letter, the return of the rest of the files, particularly that
dealing with Swire Realty and Development Corporation and Julie Teh. In the same letter, complainant also
demanded the refund of the amounts covered by the above-said two BPI Family Bank Checks amounting to
₱51,716.54, they being intended to represent payment of filing fees for the case against Swire Realty and
Development Corporation which respondent failed to file.

As respondent failed and continues to refuse to comply with complainant’s valid demands in evident bad
faith and to her prejudice, she filed the present complaint charging him with flagrant violation of Canon 16 and
Canon 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue:

WON Atty. Bondal violated Canon 16 and Canon 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:

No. The Court held that the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the four cases does not
render void the above retainer agreement for respondent appears to have represented the interest of
complainant. Litigants need to be reminded that lawyers are not demi-gods 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. In sum, this Court finds well taken the finding of the Office of the Bar Confidant
that complainant failed to establish the guilt of respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The
charges against him must thus be dismissed.

However, since respondent had been advised by complainant through counsel Chavez Laureta and
Associates, by letter of July 18, 2001, that she intended to terminate his services, as of said date, he was
obliged, under Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz:

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, to immediately turn over all papers and property which complainant
entrusted to his successor.

Other Rulings:

(1) Jayne Yu v. Swire Realty and Development Corp.

From the records of the case, it is culled that except for the case against Swire Development Corporation, the
other 4 cases referred by complainant to respondent were filed in court but were dismissed or terminated for causes
not attributable to respondent.

(2) I.S. No. 00-22089-90; Jayne Yu v. Lourdes Fresnoza Boon for Estafa
 The case for estafa against Lourdes Fresnoza Boon was dismissed by the Makati Prosecutor’s Office by
Resolution dated August 18, 2000 due to lack of probable cause and, in any event, the issues raised therein were in
the nature of intra-corporate disputes which are properly cognizable by another forum.

(3) I.S. No. 2000-G-22087-88; Jayne Yu v. Julie Teh for violation of B.P. Blg. 22

No fault or negligence can also be attributed to respondent in the dismissal of the case against Julie Teh. By. It
is clear that it was dismissed, in the main, on the ground that the offense charged did not actually exist and
complainant failed to appear and present the original checks.

On the alleged failure of respondent to appear during the hearing and his failure to present the original of the
checks subject thereof, they being then in the possession of complainant who was abroad at that time: Such failure to
present the original of the checks cannot solely be attributed to respondent, for she herself was guilty of neglect.

(4) I.S. No. 2000-D-11826; Jayne Yu v. Mona Lisa San Juan for violation of B.P. 22

(5) I.S. No. 2000-D-11827; Jayne Yu v. Elizabeth Chan Ong for violation of B.P. 22

As for the alleged compulsion in the settlement of her two complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in accordance
with the terms dictated by the therein respondents Mona Lisa San Juan and Elizabeth Chan Ong, upon the promise
of respondent that he would waive the 10% success fee in the complaint to be filed against Swire Development:
Assuming the truthfulness of her allegation that respondent compelled her to settle, what the terms were as alleged
to have been dictated by Ms. San Juan and Ms. Chan Ong, and the manner and/or extent of prejudice she suffered,
complainant did not establish. Moreover, she failed to show that the promise by respondent that he would waive the
10% success fee was for the purpose of defrauding her or of such nature as to constitute undue influence, thereby
depriving her of reasonable freedom of choice. Subsequent to the amicable settlement, it appears that complainant
never raised any objection to the terms of the compromise. As an accepted rule, when a client, upon becoming aware
of the compromise and the judgment thereon, fails to promptly repudiate the action of his attorney, he will not
afterwards be heard to complain about it.

₱51,716.54

As for complainant’s claim that the amount of ₱51,716.54, which was the only amount on record that
complainant paid for respondent’s legal services, was intended for the filing fees in the complaint against Swire
Development Corporation, the same was not substantiated as in fact the retainer agreement does not so confirm.

If, admittedly, the only payment given to complainant by respondent is the amount of ₱51,716.54, then
complainant still owes respondent more, as respondent rendered his legal services in 4 out of the 5 cases. An
acceptance fee is not a contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his
efforts regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

Elmer Canoy v. Atty. Jose Max Ortiz

A.C. No. 5485; 16 March 2005

Facts:
 There are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of the client in the
midst of litigation without even informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook his
legal practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office, does not mitigate
the dereliction of professional duty. Suspension from the practice is the usual penalty, and there is no reason to
deviate from the norm in this case.

Elmer Canoy filed a Complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant 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 with the NLRC wherein Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy
in this proceeding. 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. 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 Comment, Atty. Ortiz claims having prepared the position paper of Canoy, but before he could
submit the same, the Labor Arbiter had already issued the order dismissing the case. Atty. Ortiz admits though that
the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the
position paper to the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, "he was frankly preoccupied with both
his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer." Eventually, "his desire to help was beyond
physical limitations," and he withdrew from his other cases and his "free legal services."

According to Atty. Ortiz, "Mr. Canoy should have at least understood that during all that time, he was free
to visit or call the office and be entertained by the secretary as [he] would normally report to the office in the
afternoon as he had to attend to court trials and report to the Sanggunian office." He states that it was his policy to
inform clients that they should be the ones to follow-up their cases with his office, as it would be "too difficult and a
financial burden to attend making follow-ups with hundreds of clients, mostly indigents" with only two office
personnel.

Nonetheless, 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.

The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Eventually, the investigating commissioner concluded that "clearly, the records show that [Atty.
Ortiz] failed to exercise that degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients' (sic)
claim," and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. The IBP Commission on Discipline adopted the
recommendation, with the slight modification that Atty. Ortiz be likewise warned that a repetition of the same
negligence shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

Issue:

(1) WON Atty. Ortiz’ failure to file the position paper on time constitutes a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
(2) WON Atty. Ortiz’ election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City justify his negligence to perform his duties
as a counsel.

Ruling:
(1) Yes. 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.

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

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy
or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice
law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to
the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain
the respect of the community to the legal profession.

If indeed Atty. Ortiz's schedule, workload, or physical condition was such that he would not be
able to make a timely filing, he should have informed Canoy of such fact. The relationship of lawyer-client
being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of
the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her
interests are being defended.

There could have been remedies undertaken to this inability of Atty. Ortiz to file on time the
position paper had Canoy been told of such fact, such as a request for more time to file the position paper,
or maybe even the hiring of collaborating counsel or substitution of Atty. Ortiz as counsel. Since Atty.
Ortiz did not exercise the necessary degree of care by either filing the position paper on time or informing
Canoy that the paper could not be submitted seasonably, the ignominy of having the

(2) No. Neither is the Court mollified by 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. Statutes
expressly prohibit the occupant of particular public offices from engaging in the practice of
law, such as governors and mayors, and in such instance, the attorney-client relationship is
terminated. However, 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. Still, the
severance of the relation of attorney-client is not effective until a notice of discharge
by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court or
tribunal, and a copy thereof served upon the adverse party, and until then, the lawyer
continues to be counsel in the case.

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. This was highly irresponsible of Atty.
Ortiz, much more so considering that Canoy was one of the indigent clients whom Atty. Ortiz
proudly claims as his favored clientele. It does not escape the Court's attention that Atty.
Ortiz faults Canoy for not adequately following up the case with his office. He cannot now
shift the blame to complainant for failing to inquire about the status of the case, since,
as stated above, it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases
entrusted to him.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose Max S. Ortiz is ordered SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) month from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the same
negligence will be dealt with more severely.

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.