dfad

(1)

D. The Lawyer and the Client D. The Lawyer and the Client Canon 15

Canon 15 – – Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in Dealings with Clients Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in Dealings with Clients

Lluna

r v. R

icafort

, Adm. Case No. 6484, June 16, 2015, Adm. Case No. 6484, June 16, 2015

Facts:

In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo Ricafort for In September, 2000, Adelita engaged the services of Atty. Romulo Ricafort for the recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was the recovery of a parcel of land owned by the Banez family but which was fraudulently registered to a

fraudulently registered to a different name. different name. The lot wThe lot was the subject as the subject of foreclosureof foreclosure proceedings, hence, Adelita gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 proceedings, hence, Adelita gave to Atty. Ricafort the amount of P95,000.00 (partial redemption fee, as

(partial redemption fee, as filing fees, and filing fees, and attorneys fees). attorneys fees). Three years later,Three years later, complainant learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any case with the RTC of complainant learned that Atty. Ricafort did not file any case with the RTC of Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the return of P95,000.00. The latter averred Legazpi City, hence, she demanded the return of P95,000.00. The latter averred that there was a complaint for annulment of title filed against Ard Cervantes, that there was a complaint for annulment of title filed against Ard Cervantes, though not him, but

though not him, but by another lawyer. by another lawyer. Thus, he wThus, he was willing to refund as willing to refund thethe amount less the

amount less the P50,000.00 which he P50,000.00 which he gave to gave to Atty. Abitria. Atty. Abitria. Adelita refused toAdelita refused to recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did not hire him as counsel; recognize the case filed by Atty. Abitria, insisting she did not hire him as counsel; also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property cannot be also, the complaint was filed three years late and the property cannot be redeemed from the

redeemed from the bank anymore. bank anymore. She also She also learned that Atty. learned that Atty. Ricafort wasRicafort was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus indefinitely suspended from the practice of law since 2002 in A.C. No. 5054, thus she suspected it was the reason why another lawyer filed the case.

she suspected it was the reason why another lawyer filed the case.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Ricafort is guilty of misconduct for practicing law under Whether or not Atty. Ricafort is guilty of misconduct for practicing law under indefinite suspension?

indefinite suspension?

Ruling:

Yes.

Yes. The The respondent respondent is is found found guilty guilty of of Grave Grave Misconduct Misconduct in in his his dealingsdealings with his client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite with his client and in engaging in the practice of law while under indefinite suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of suspension, and thus impose upon him the ultimate penalty of DISBARMENT.

DISBARMENT.

The respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the The respondent committed dishonesty by not being forthright with the complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. complainant that he was under indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached The respondent should have disclosed this fact at the time he was approached by the complainant for his servi

by the complainant for his servi ces. Canon 15 of the CPR states that “a lawyerces. Canon 15 of the CPR states that “a lawyer shall observe

shall observe candor candor , fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.” The respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of his clients.” The respondent lacked the candor expected of him as a member of the Bar when he accepted the complainant’s cas

the Bar when he accepted the complainant’s cas e despite knowing that he coulde despite knowing that he could not and should not practice law.

not and should not practice law.

Vi

ll

a

he

rmosa, S

r. v

. C

a

racol

, A.C. No. 7325 (Resolution), January 21, 2015, A.C. No. 7325 (Resolution), January 21, 2015

FACTS: FACTS:

OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law was enacted, two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law was enacted, emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, who in turn sold the parcels of land to complainant’s spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. The Department of Agrarian complainant’s spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision ordering the cancellation Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision ordering the cancellation

(2)

of the emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating that it of the emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating that it was not covered by

was not covered by the agrarian reform law. the agrarian reform law. This decision was appealed to This decision was appealed to andand affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol, affirmed by the DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol, as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs

as “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs --Movant,” filed a motion for execution with theMovant,” filed a motion for execution with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full implementation of the decision. Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of decision. Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition which he signed as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Execution and Demolition which he signed as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela.” Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no Babela.” Villahermosa filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the motions since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and authority to file the motions since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record. Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized the counsel of record. Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second motion bec

Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had already beeause Efren had already been dead forn dead for more than a

more than a year. year. He claimed that He claimed that Atty. Caracol’s real Atty. Caracol’s real client was client was a certaina certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same parcel of land. Atty. Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly bought the same parcel of land. Atty. Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto authorized him to appear as “additional Caracol insists that Efren and Ernesto authorized him to appear as “additional counsel”.

counsel”. He said that He said that he had he had consulted Atty. Aquino wconsulted Atty. Aquino who advised him to ho advised him to gogo ahead with the

ahead with the filing. filing. Moreover, he stated that he wMoreover, he stated that he was not aware as not aware that there wasthat there was a waiver of rights executed in Ernesto Aguirre’s favor. In its Report and a waiver of rights executed in Ernesto Aguirre’s favor. In its Report and Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful acts and misconduct.

misconduct. ISSUE: ISSUE:

Is Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of oath Is Atty. Caracol guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of oath under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?

under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court? RULING:

RULING: YES

YES. The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a. The Rules of Court under Rule 138, Section 21 provides for a presumption of a la

presumption of a lawyer’s appearance on behalf of his client, hence:wyer’s appearance on behalf of his client, hence:

Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as counsel Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as counsel for a person without being retained nor may he appear in court without being for a person without being retained nor may he appear in court without being employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney

employed unless by leave of court. If an attorney appears on a client’s behalfappears on a client’s behalf without a retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports without a retainer or the requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance to represent nor the adverse party may be bound or affected by his appearance unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed authority. unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to deny his assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case If a lawyer corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transaction.

the court who has misbehaved in his official transaction. Atty.

Atty. Caracol Caracol knew knew that that Efren Efren had had already already passed passed away away at at the the time time hehe filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. filed the Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. As

As an an honest, honest, prudent prudent and and conscienconscientious tious lawyelawyer, r, he he should should have have informed informed thethe Court of his client’s passing and presented au

Court of his client’s passing and presented au thority that he was retained by thethority that he was retained by the client’s successors

(3)

Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest

R

os

a

ci

a

v. B

ul

al

a

cao,

Adm. Case No. 3745, October 2, 1995Adm. Case No. 3745, October 2, 1995

Facts Facts

Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a duly Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a duly registered corporation, filed a complaint for disbarment against herein registered corporation, filed a complaint for disbarment against herein

respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez of respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez of the IBP found that respondent breached his oath of office and accordingly

the IBP found that respondent breached his oath of office and accordingly recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law .

recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law .

"On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement (Exh. "3-a"), respondent Atty. "On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement (Exh. "3-a"), respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as retained counsel of a corporation by the Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as retained counsel of a corporation by the name of Tacma Phils., Inc.

name of Tacma Phils., Inc.

"After almost nine (9) months from the date respondent's retainer agreement with "After almost nine (9) months from the date respondent's retainer agreement with Tacma, Phils., Inc. was terminated, several employees of the corporation

Tacma, Phils., Inc. was terminated, several employees of the corporation

consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal. consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf."

Commission, and appearing in their behalf." Issue:

Issue: WON respondent breached his oath of office for representing theWON respondent breached his oath of office for representing the

employees of his former client, Tacma, Phils., Inc., after the termination of their employees of his former client, Tacma, Phils., Inc., after the termination of their attorney-client relationship

attorney-client relationship Held

Held

Yes. We agree with the findings of the IBP that respondent breached his oath of Yes. We agree with the findings of the IBP that respondent breached his oath of office. The Court reiterates that the loyalty an attorney owes to his client subsists office. The Court reiterates that the loyalty an attorney owes to his client subsists even after the termination of attorney-client relationship. It behooves respondent even after the termination of attorney-client relationship. It behooves respondent not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the

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 appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of importance in the administration of justice. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. No opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of No opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the confidential relation of attorney and client exists. clients obtained while the confidential relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the people.

people.

A

baqueta

v. F

lori

do,

Adm.Case No. 5948. January 22, 2003Adm.Case No. 5948. January 22, 2003

FACTS:

FACTS: Complainant Abaqueta filed this administration complaint against respondent Atty. Florido for conflict Complainant Abaqueta filed this administration complaint against respondent Atty. Florido for conflict of interest. Abaqueta engaged the prof

of interest. Abaqueta engaged the prof essional services of Atty. Florido in a essional services of Atty. Florido in a special proceeding entitledspecial proceeding entitled In the In the Matter of the Intestate Est

Matter of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Aate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaquetabaqueta Susana Uy TrazoSusana Uy Trazo (1(1stst_Case)._Case)._{Atty. Florido was}_{Atty. Florido was} able to file Objections and Comments to Inventory and

able to file Objections and Comments to Inventory and Accounting, registering complainants objection.Accounting, registering complainants objection.

Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against complainant Abaqueta in a Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against complainant Abaqueta in a case entitled,

case entitled, Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. G Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Geronaano Gerona (2nd Case(2nd Case ). ). Respondent Atty.Respondent Atty. Florido signed the Complaint as counsel for

Florido signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap-Abaqueta, averring,plaintiff Milagros Yap-Abaqueta, averring, inter alia,inter alia, that Plaintiffthat Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the

and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal ownersconjugal owners of those certain parcels of land. However, the parcelof those certain parcels of land. However, the parcel of land referred to as conjugal party of the complainant and Milagro Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcel of of land referred to as conjugal party of the complainant and Milagro Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcel of land in the 1

(4)

In short, respondent

In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in the 2lawyer made allegations in the 2ndnd_{Case, which were contrary to and in direct conflict}_Case,_{which were contrary to and in direct conflict} with his averments as counsel for complainant in the 1

with his averments as counsel for complainant in the 1stst_case._{case. Complainant also avered that respondent}_{Complainant also avered that respondent Atty.}_Atty. Florido admitted that he was never authorized to appear as counsel for Milagro Yap-Abaqueta in the 2

Florido admitted that he was never authorized to appear as counsel for Milagro Yap-Abaqueta in the 2ndnd_case,_case, and that Atty. Florido failed to indicate n the Co

and that Atty. Florido failed to indicate n the Co mplaint the true and correct address omplaint the true and correct address o f herein complainant,f herein complainant, which Atty. Florido knew as far back as August 2, 1990.

which Atty. Florido knew as far back as August 2, 1990. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON Atty Florido violated Rule 15.03 of WON Atty Florido violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsthe Code of Professional Respons ibility by representingibility by representing Milagros Yap?

Milagros Yap? HELD: HELD:

YES. The reasons explained by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse his clear representation of conflicting YES. The reasons explained by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse his clear representation of conflicting the fact that the subject matter of the two cases are the

the fact that the subject matter of the two cases are the same properties same properties could not have escaped the attention ofcould not have escaped the attention of respondent.

respondent. There is a conf

There is a conf lict of interest if there is an lict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two or inconsistency in the interests of two or more opposing parties. The testmore opposing parties. The test is whether or not in

is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty toissue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.

oppose it for the other client. In short, if he argues In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposefor one client, this argument will be oppose d by him when hed by him when he argues for the other client.

argues for the other client.

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of prof

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of prof essional misconduct, act as counsel for a essional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interestperson whose interest conflicts with that of his former client.

conflicts with that of his former client. The reason for the pThe reason for the p rohibition is found in the relation of attorney androhibition is found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.

client which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Indeed, as we stated inIndeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera,Sibulo v. Cabrera, TheThe relation of attorney and client is based

relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing, which on trust, so that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery,could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided

should be avoided

P

orment

o, S

r. v. P

ont

evedra

,

Adm. Case No. 5128, March 31, 2005Adm. Case No. 5128, March 31, 2005

Facts:

Facts: Respondent was the Pormento family’s legal counsel Respondent was the Pormento family’s legal counsel between 1964 and 1994. The family’sbetween 1964 and 1994. The family’s relationship with the respondent extends beyond the mere lawyer-client relations.

relationship with the respondent extends beyond the mere lawyer-client relations. The rift between complainant and respondent began when

The rift between complainant and respondent began when the complainant’s counterclaimthe complainant’s counterclaim in a civil case filed with the RTC of Bacolod City was dismissed. Respondent failed to inform

in a civil case filed with the RTC of Bacolod City was dismissed. Respondent failed to inform complainant Pormento of the dismissal of his counterclaim which resulted to the latter being complainant Pormento of the dismissal of his counterclaim which resulted to the latter being deprived of his right to appeal. In order to recover his ownership over a

deprived of his right to appeal. In order to recover his ownership over a parcel of land, Pormento wasparcel of land, Pormento was forced to hire a new lawyer as Atty.

forced to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an action to recover the subjectPontevedra refused to institute an action to recover the subject property.

property.

In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at Negros Oc

In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at Negros Occidental. cidental. TheThe Deed of Declaration of Heirship and Sale of said land

Deed of Declaration of Heirship and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by respondent.was prepared and notarized by respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership of the property, complainant alleges

Since there was another person who claims ownership of the property, complainant alleges that hethat he heeded respondent’s advice to build a small house on the

heeded respondent’s advice to build a small house on the property and to allow his (complainant’s)property and to allow his (complainant’s) nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for c

nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for c omplainant to establish his possession of theomplainant to establish his possession of the said property.

said property. Subsequently, complainant’s nepSubsequently, complainant’s nephew refused to vacate the property prompting thehew refused to vacate the property prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros

former to file an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental.

Occidental. Respondent acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephewRespondent acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephew Issue:

Issue:

W/N there was conflicting interest in the case

W/N there was conflicting interest in the case at bar?at bar? Held/Ruling:

Held/Ruling:

Yes. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of P

Yes. Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of P rofessional Responsibility provides:rofessional Responsibility provides:

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

(5)

Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of

Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance ofconflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything 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, 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.

to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another Another test test toto determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is whether the acceptance of a determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity 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 and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

performance thereof.

A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is

subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of thematter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.

previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.

P

aca

na

vs

. Pas

cual

-Lopez

, Adm.Case No. 8243. July 24, 2009, Adm.Case No. 8243. July 24, 2009 Facts:

Facts:

Rolando Pacana, Jr. (complainant) filed an ad

Rolando Pacana, Jr. (complainant) filed an administrative complaint against Atty.ministrative complaint against Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez (respondent) charging the latter with flagrant violation of the Maricel Pascual-Lopez (respondent) charging the latter with flagrant violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleges thatComplainant alleges that

respondent commited acts constituting conflict of interest, dishonesty, influence peddling, respondent commited acts constituting conflict of interest, dishonesty, influence peddling, and failure to render an accounting o

and failure to render an accounting of all the money and pf all the money and properties received by her fromroperties received by her from complainant.

complainant.

Complainant worked for Multitel and earned the ire

Complainant worked for Multitel and earned the ire of investors after becomingof investors after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of

the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of Precedent and after being appointed Precedent and after being appointed asas trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos (P30,00

trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos (P30,00 0,000.00) deposited at Real0,000.00) deposited at Real Bank.

Bank.

Complainant sought the advice of

Complainant sought the advice of respondent and a lawyer-client relationship wasrespondent and a lawyer-client relationship was established between the parties although no formal document was executed. Complainant established between the parties although no formal document was executed. Complainant learned of the respondent’s clients in Multitel after receiving a demand

learned of the respondent’s clients in Multitel after receiving a demand letter from theletter from the latter. Respondent continued to help complainant through the latter paying an amount and latter. Respondent continued to help complainant through the latter paying an amount and even transferring property to the former on different occasions to be

even transferring property to the former on different occasions to be used in dealing withused in dealing with the latter’s liabilities. Complainant then went to the US to

the latter’s liabilities. Complainant then went to the US to avoid being arrested while avoid being arrested while respondent handles his liabilities.

respondent handles his liabilities.

When complainant returned to the Ph

When complainant returned to the Philippines, respondent informed him that heilippines, respondent informed him that he has been cleared by the NBI and the BID. Respondent continued that she was willing to has been cleared by the NBI and the BID. Respondent continued that she was willing to return an amount to complainant after all

return an amount to complainant after all the accumulated legal fees the former hadthe accumulated legal fees the former had earned from settling the liabilities of both complainant and the

earned from settling the liabilities of both complainant and the clients from Multitel.clients from Multitel. Complainant accepted the offer of receiving amou

Complainant accepted the offer of receiving amount but respondent failed to fulfill thent but respondent failed to fulfill the promise.

promise.

Soon, complainant noticed that respondent began to avoid communicating with Soon, complainant noticed that respondent began to avoid communicating with him. Complainant then wrote to respondent a

him. Complainant then wrote to respondent a letter formally asking for a full accountingletter formally asking for a full accounting of all the money, documents an

of all the money, documents and properties given to the latter but respondent d properties given to the latter but respondent failed tofailed to provide a clear audited financial report of all the properties turned over by the

provide a clear audited financial report of all the properties turned over by the complainant to the respondent. Complainant filed an affidavit-complaint against complainant to the respondent. Complainant filed an affidavit-complaint against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the

respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of respondent.

Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of respondent.

Issue: Issue:

Did the respondent violate Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Did the respondent violate Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional responsibility, representing conflicting interests?

(6)

Holding: Holding:

Yes. Respondent Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby D

Yes. Respondent Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby D ISBARRED for representingISBARRED for representing conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and d

conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and d eceitful conduct ineceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code

violation of her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.of Professional Responsibility.

Clearly, respondent established a lawyer-client relationship with the complainant while Clearly, respondent established a lawyer-client relationship with the complainant while aware that respondent also represents clients of Multitel, who are opp

aware that respondent also represents clients of Multitel, who are opp osed to theosed to the liabilities of the complainant. Moreover, respondent took advantage

liabilities of the complainant. Moreover, respondent took advantage of the complainant’sof the complainant’s situation by giving him advice, and later on, soliciting money and properties from him situation by giving him advice, and later on, soliciting money and properties from him which were used to satisfy clients of Multitel.

which were used to satisfy clients of Multitel.

S

antos V

entur

a

Ho

cor

ma

F

ound

at

i

on, I

nc

. v. F

unk

, Adm.Case No. 9094., Adm.Case No. 9094.

August 15, 2012

August 15, 2012 FACTS:

FACTS: _{Hocorma Foundation f}_{Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint}_{iled a complaint for disbarment agains}_{for disbarment against respondent. It}_{t respondent. It alleged}_alleged

that

that respondent respondent used to used to work work as as corporate corporate secretary, secretary, counsel, counsel, chief chief executive executive officer, officer, andand trustee

trustee of the of the foundation foundation from 1983 from 1983 to 1985. to 1985. He also He also served as served as its counits counsel in sel in several criminalseveral criminal and civil cases.

and civil cases.

Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.

foundation.

As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the Santos in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the

attorney-attorney-client relationship client relationship was was always between always between Santos and Santos and him. him. He He was was more more of of Santos’Santos’ personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma

personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.Foundation.

Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to latter would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was

the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma andauthorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it Santos’ sale o

follow up with it Santos’ sale o r donation r donation of a of a 5-hectare land in 5-hectare land in Pampanga Pampanga to Mabalacatto Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out

Foundation out of funds that of funds that Santos provideSantos provided. d. It was SanIt was Santos’ intentitos’ intention since 19on since 1950 to give t50 to give thehe land to

land to Mabalacat Institute free of Mabalacat Institute free of rent and expenses.rent and expenses.

The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funk’s fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funk’s fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of Four years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the respondent.

the respondent.

After hearing, the Committee on

After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have Atty. Funk to have violated Canonviolated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct 15, Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four

consisting of four court appearances against hcourt appearances against his former client, the His former client, the Hocorma Foundation. ocorma Foundation. TheThe CBD recommended Atty. Funk’s suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent CBD recommended Atty. Funk’s suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.

moved for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE:

ISSUE:_{Whether or n}_{Whether or not}_{ot Atty. Funk betrayed}_{Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and}_{the trust and confidence of a}_{confidence of a former client in}_{former client in}

violation of the CPR when he filed several actions against such client

(7)

HELD:

HELD: _{Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting}_{Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting}

interests except

interests except by written consent of all by written consent of all concerned given after a full concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the foundation

behalf of another client without the foundation’s written consent.’s written consent. An attorney owes his client und

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. ivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduBecause of the highly fiduciary nature of theirciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires interests or discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former client’s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily knowledge of his former client’s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust

not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on and confidence that his client placed on him in thehim in the light of their relationship.

light of their relationship. Respondent coll

Respondent collected attorneected attorney’s fees from the foundaty’s fees from the foundation. ion. Thus, he had an obligatiThus, he had an obligation not toon not to use any knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property use any knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation existed at all, when he sued

under litigation existed at all, when he sued the foundation.the foundation.

A

ng

lo

v. V

al

enc

i

a

, Adm. Case No. 10567, February 25, 2015, Adm. Case No. 10567, February 25, 2015

Facts: Facts:

Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Comp

handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Comp lainant filed disbarmentlainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.

interest.

IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of interest and recommended that the respondents be reprimanded.

of interest and recommended that the respondents be reprimanded. Issue:

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR?

violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR? Held:

Held:

Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests Yes. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 are therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.

of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. As

As the the records records bear bear out, out, respondrespondents’ ents’ law law firm firm was was engageengaged d and, and, thus,thus, represented complainant in the labor cases instituted against him. However, after represented complainant in the labor cases instituted against him. However, after the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE the termination thereof, the law firm agreed to represent a new client, FEVE Farms, in the filing of a criminal case for qualified theft against complainant, its Farms, in the filing of a criminal case for qualified theft against complainant, its former client, and his wife. As the Court observes, the law firm

(8)

acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to organize and implement acceptance of the criminal case arose from its failure to organize and implement a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to a system by which it would have been able to keep track of all cases assigned to its handling lawyers to the end of, among others, ensuring that every its handling lawyers to the end of, among others, ensuring that every engagement it accepts stands clear of any potential conflict of interest.

engagement it accepts stands clear of any potential conflict of interest. As

As an an organizorganization ation of of individuindividual al lawyers lawyers which, which, albeit albeit engaged engaged as as a a collectivcollective,e, assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer, it behooves the law firm to value coordination in deference to the conflict of interest rule. This lack of to value coordination in deference to the conflict of interest rule. This lack of coordination, as respondents’ law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably renders coordination, as respondents’ law firm exhibited in this case, intolerably renders its clients’ secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in its clients’ secrets vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure, eroding in the balance the

lawyer-the balance lawyer-the lawyer-client relationship’client relationship’s primordial ideal of unimpaired trusts primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence

and confidence

Mabini

C

olleg

es

, Inc

. v. P

ajari

llo

, Adm. Case No. 10687, July 22, 2015, Adm. Case No. 10687, July 22, 2015

FACTS: FACTS:

Mabini Colleges, Inc., had a Board of Trustees which was divided into two Mabini Colleges, Inc., had a Board of Trustees which was divided into two opposing factions. The first faction, called the Adeva Group, the other faction is opposing factions. The first faction, called the Adeva Group, the other faction is called the Lukban Group. It appointed the Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo as its corporate called the Lukban Group. It appointed the Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo as its corporate secretary.

secretary. Adeva

Adeva Group Group issued issued a a Board Board ResolutiResolution on which which authoriauthorized zed the the ExecutiExecutive ve ViceVice President and Treasurer of the complainant at that time, and the Vice President President and Treasurer of the complainant at that time, and the Vice President for Administration and Finance, to apply for a loan with the Rural Bank of for Administration and Finance, to apply for a loan with the Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP), Daet Branch, Camarines Norte in favor of Mabini Colleges, Inc. Paracale (RBP), Daet Branch, Camarines Norte in favor of Mabini Colleges, Inc. Lukban Group sent a letter to RBP to oppose the loan application because the Lukban Group sent a letter to RBP to oppose the loan application because the Adeva Group appointed Librado

Adeva Group appointed Librado Guerra and Cesar Guerra and Cesar Echano, who were Echano, who were allegedlyallegedly not registered as stockholders in the Stock and Transfer Book of the not registered as stockholders in the Stock and Transfer Book of the complainant, as members of the Board of Trustees. The Lukban Group also complainant, as members of the Board of Trustees. The Lukban Group also alleged that Mabini Colleges, Inc. was having financial difficulties.

alleged that Mabini Colleges, Inc. was having financial difficulties. Atty. Paj

Atty. Pajarillo sent arillo sent a letter to a letter to RBP to RBP to assure thassure the latter oe latter of Mabini Cof Mabini College's finllege's financialancial capacity to pay the loan.

capacity to pay the loan.

RBP sent a letter to the complainant acknowledging receipt of the SEC Order RBP sent a letter to the complainant acknowledging receipt of the SEC Order and informing the latter that the SEC Order was referred to RBP's legal counsel, and informing the latter that the SEC Order was referred to RBP's legal counsel, Atty. Pajari

Atty. Pajarillo. Mabini Collello. Mabini Colleges alleged that it wges alleged that it was only upon receipt of suas only upon receipt of such letterch letter that it became aware that Atty. Pajarillo is also the legal counsel of RBP.

that it became aware that Atty. Pajarillo is also the legal counsel of RBP.

Mabini Colleges filed the present complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo Mabini Colleges filed the present complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo for allegedly representing conflicting interests and for failing to exhibit candor, for allegedly representing conflicting interests and for failing to exhibit candor, fairness, and loyalty.

fairness, and loyalty. ISSUE:

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests when Whether Atty. Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of he entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage filed by Mabini Colleges, Inc. against RBP.

(9)

RULING: RULING:

Yes, he represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of Yes, he represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."

after a full disclosure of the facts."

This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests This rule 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 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 same action or on totally unrelated cases. Atty.

Atty. Pajarillo Pajarillo representerepresented d conflictinconflicting g interests interests when when he he served served as as counsel counsel forfor RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage filed by the Mabini College against RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage filed by the Mabini College against RBP.

RBP.

G

imeno v. Z

aide

, Adm. Case No. 10303, April 22, 2015, Adm. Case No. 10303, April 22, 2015

PNB charged Atty. Cedo, former AVP of the Asset Mgt Group of PNB with PNB charged Atty. Cedo, former AVP of the Asset Mgt Group of PNB with violation of CPR by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions violation of CPR by appearing as counsel for individuals who had transactions with the latter, in which Cedo during his employment with the said bank has with the latter, in which Cedo during his employment with the said bank has intervened.

intervened.

Gimeno alleged that she was a former client of Atty. Zaide. She engaged the Gimeno alleged that she was a former client of Atty. Zaide. She engaged the services of his law firm ZMZ Law Offices in an annulment case involving her services of his law firm ZMZ Law Offices in an annulment case involving her husband and her parents-in-law. Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, husband and her parents-in-law. Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty

Atty Zaide Zaide appeareappeared d against against her her before before the the OmbudsmanOmbudsman. . Thus, Thus, Zaide Zaide violatedviolated the prohibition against

the prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients’ interests. Attythe representation of conflicting clients’ interests. Atty Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire Zaide argued that Gimeno was never his client since she did not personally hire her as her counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously her as her counsel. Gimeno engaged the services of ZMZ where he previously worked as an associate. The real counsel of Gimeno was Atty Zaragosa, one of worked as an associate. The real counsel of Gimeno was Atty Zaragosa, one of ZMZ’s partners.

ZMZ’s partners.

Issue: Whether there was a conflicting interests when Zaide appeared as counsel Issue: Whether there was a conflicting interests when Zaide appeared as counsel against Gimeno before the Ombudsman?

against Gimeno before the Ombudsman? Ruling:

Ruling:

NO. we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno, NO. we find no conflict of interest when Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno, his former law firm's client.

his former law firm's client.

The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno ceased when Atty. Zaide le

Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreoveft ZMZ. Moreover, the case where Gr, the case where Gimeno engagimeno engaged ZMZ's served ZMZ's servicesices is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any way connected to the is an entirely different subject matter and is not in any way connected to the complaint filed against Gimeno with the Ombudsman. The prior case where complaint filed against Gimeno with the Ombudsman. The prior case where Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide represented her family pertained to the Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide represented her family pertained to the annulment of a land title. The case where Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno annulment of a land title. The case where Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno involved complaint against Gimeno for her alleged mishandling of the funds involved complaint against Gimeno for her alleged mishandling of the funds entrusted to her, and for Gimeno's alleged corruption as an examiner in the entrusted to her, and for Gimeno's alleged corruption as an examiner in the

(10)

Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment of title case and the Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment of title case and the Ombudsman case are totally unrelated.

Ombudsman case are totally unrelated.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest when, Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

client requires him to oppose. Privileged Communication Privileged Communication Revised Penal Code, Art.209 Revised Penal Code, Art.209 Canon 16

Canon 16 – – Shall Hold in Trust Moneys and Properties of Client Shall Hold in Trust Moneys and Properties of Client Civil Code, Art. 1491

Civil Code, Art. 1491

Li

cuana

n v.

Mel

o,

Adm. Case No. 2361, February 9, 1989Adm. Case No. 2361, February 9, 1989

In 1979, Licuanan won a case against her tenant Aida Pineda whereby Pineda was ordered In 1979, Licuanan won a case against her tenant Aida Pineda whereby Pineda was ordered to pay the rents

to pay the rents due to Licuanan. due to Licuanan. Pineda complied and she started paying the rents Pineda complied and she started paying the rents toto Licuanan’s lawyer, Atty. Manuel Melo. So for 12 months, M

Licuanan’s lawyer, Atty. Manuel Melo. So for 12 months, M elo received the rentalelo received the rental payments but he did not turn over the said payments to Licuanan. Licuanan did inquire payments but he did not turn over the said payments to Licuanan. Licuanan did inquire about said payment but Melo withheld information about the fact

about said payment but Melo withheld information about the fact that Pineda was actuallythat Pineda was actually paying. As a consequence, Licuanan filed a case against Pineda. Pineda in turn filed a paying. As a consequence, Licuanan filed a case against Pineda. Pineda in turn filed a damage suit against Licuanan as she claims that the case filed by Licuanan against her is damage suit against Licuanan as she claims that the case filed by Licuanan against her is groundless

groundless –– as she was in fact paying as she was in fact paying her rents.her rents. Eventually, Licuanan find out that Melo

Eventually, Licuanan find out that Melo failed to deliver to her the rents. Licuanan thenfailed to deliver to her the rents. Licuanan then filed an affidavit complaint against Melo. Melo in his defense said that he withheld filed an affidavit complaint against Melo. Melo in his defense said that he withheld information about the rent payments for a year because he merely wanted to surprise information about the rent payments for a year because he merely wanted to surprise Licuanan about the success of the collections. The Solicitor General subsequently Licuanan about the success of the collections. The Solicitor General subsequently recommended the suspension of Melo for not less than one year.

recommended the suspension of Melo for not less than one year.

ISSUE:

ISSUE:_{Whether or not Melo should be}_{Whether or not Melo should be suspended.}_suspended. HELD:

HELD:_{No. As ruled by the Supreme Court, he should be disbarred. Melo’s retaining of}_{No. As ruled by the Supreme Court, he should be disbarred. Melo’s retaining of}

Licuanan’s money for more than a year breached his oath and

Licuanan’s money for more than a year breached his oath and transgressed the Code oftransgressed the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such action did not merely deprive Licuanan of the use of her Professional Responsibility. Such action did not merely deprive Licuanan of the use of her money but also caused her to file a groundless suit against Pineda and on top of that, money but also caused her to file a groundless suit against Pineda and on top of that, Licuanan had to defend herself in a damage suit filed against her in turn by Pineda. In all, Licuanan had to defend herself in a damage suit filed against her in turn by Pineda. In all, Melo’s actuations make him guilty of

Melo’s actuations make him guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. Hedeceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated his oath not to has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated his oath not to delay any man for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and delay any man for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the severest punishment of disbarment.

He deserves the severest punishment of disbarment.

Dumada

g

v.

Lumaya

,

Adm. Case No. 2614. May 21, 1991Adm. Case No. 2614. May 21, 1991

Facts: Facts:

(11)

According

According to to complaincomplainant, ant, he he asked asked his his then then counsel, counsel, herein herein respondrespondent, ent, toto prepare and file the appropriate motion for execution; however, the latter failed to prepare and file the appropriate motion for execution; however, the latter failed to do so. It was through the assistance of the court stenographer, Mr. Eleuterio do so. It was through the assistance of the court stenographer, Mr. Eleuterio Catubig, that complainant himself signed and filed the motion and later obtained Catubig, that complainant himself signed and filed the motion and later obtained the writ of execution.

the writ of execution.

When the writ of execution was issued, Deputy Sheriff Rogelio Dongiapon, When the writ of execution was issued, Deputy Sheriff Rogelio Dongiapon, according to the complainant, instead of serving the same on the Avellanosas, according to the complainant, instead of serving the same on the Avellanosas, connived with respondent attorney by selling a one (1) hectare portion of the land connived with respondent attorney by selling a one (1) hectare portion of the land subject of Civil Case No. 148 to one Eleonora Astudillo to satisfy complainant's subject of Civil Case No. 148 to one Eleonora Astudillo to satisfy complainant's claim out of the proceeds of the sale, without however Dumadag's knowledge claim out of the proceeds of the sale, without however Dumadag's knowledge and consent.

and consent. ISSUE:

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Lumaya is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the CPR?W/N Atty. Lumaya is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the CPR? Ruling:

Ruling: Yes.Yes. “[E]ven as respondent consistently denied liability to Dumadag, his“[E]ven as respondent consistently denied liability to Dumadag, his former client, the records abundantly point to his receipt of and failure to deliver former client, the records abundantly point to his receipt of and failure to deliver the amount of P4,344.00 to his client, the herein complainant, a clear breach of the amount of P4,344.00 to his client, the herein complainant, a clear breach of the canons of professional responsibility.

the canons of professional responsibility.

Dhal

iwa

l v. D

uma

g

uing

,

Adm. Case No. 9390. August 1, 2012Adm. Case No. 9390. August 1, 2012

Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues in purchasing a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Emilia Dhaliwal was having some legal issues in purchasing a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. Their case reached the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Development, Inc. Their case reached the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). She then engaged the services of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in the year 2000. (HLURB). She then engaged the services of Atty. Abelardo Dumaguing in the year 2000. Atty. Dumaguing was given P342,000.00 for him to consign with the HLURB. With the Atty. Dumaguing was given P342,000.00 for him to consign with the HLURB. With the consignment, he filed a petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title to consignment, he filed a petition with the HLURB to compel Fil-Estate to deliver the title to Dhaliwal. However, a week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the amount Dhaliwal. However, a week later, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the amount of P311,819.94.

of P311,819.94.

In 2003, Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing. In the same year, Dhaliwal In 2003, Dhaliwal terminated the services of Atty. Dumaguing. In the same year, Dhaliwal lost in the HLURB case. She then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return her the lost in the HLURB case. She then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return her the P311,819.94 he earlier withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing refused to return said amount. Dhaliwal P311,819.94 he earlier withdrew. Atty. Dumaguing refused to return said amount. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Dumaguing.

filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Dumaguing.

In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it not proper to return In his defense, Atty. Dumaguing said that the reason why he deemed it not proper to return the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the HLURB the said amount to Dhaliwal is that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the HLURB but the latter had not yet acted on it. Atty. Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion but the latter had not yet acted on it. Atty. Dumaguing attached a copy of the said motion for reconsideration.

for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

ISSUE:_{Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing should be}_{Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing should be disciplined.}_disciplined. HELD:

HELD:_{Yes. It was established that the attached motion for reconsideration was a mere}_{Yes. It was established that the attached motion for reconsideration was a mere}

fabrication because it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB nor fabrication because it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other party was notified.

was there proof that the other party was notified.

Atty. Dumaguing is in violation of Canon 16 of the Code Atty. Dumaguing is in violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

of Professional Responsibility which states, among others, that: “A lawyer shall which states, among others, that: “A lawyer shall hold in trusthold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that

(12)

failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Atty. Dumaguing was suspended for 6 months.

punishment. Atty. Dumaguing was suspended for 6 months.

S

ps

C

onc

epci

on v. D

ela

R

os

a

, Adm. Case No. 10681, February 3, 2015, Adm. Case No. 10681, February 3, 2015

Facts: Facts:

This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint filed by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S. filed by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants) against respondent Atty. Elmer Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants) against respondent Atty. Elmer A.

A. dela dela Rosa Rosa (respon(respondent), dent), chargincharging g him him with with gross gross misconducmisconduct t for for violatingviolating,, among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among others, many of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. Said the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to materialize. Aware of the fact that complainants had business, however, failed to materialize. Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, money intact from their failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow money. The checks were personally encashed by called Henry to borrow money. The checks were personally encashed by respondent. Demanded the return of payment but failed to do so. Respondent respondent. Demanded the return of payment but failed to do so. Respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor.18 He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect real debtor.18 He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose.

from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose.

In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal profession and clearly respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to appear during the mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the appear during the mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2,500,000.00 to respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.

complainants, with stipulated interest. Issue:

Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating theWhether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

CPR.

Held: YES.

Held: YES. Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited fromUnder Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected: borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected:

Rule 16.04

Rule 16.04 – – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’

unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of thes interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a 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 client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. ””

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any