010914_ETHICS_Canon16 (Last Case) to 19

8/13/2019 010914_ETHICS_Canon16 (Last Case) to 19

1/15

..CANON 16

CORAZON T. NEVADA,- versus - ATTY. RODOLFO D.

CASUGA,

SC Ruling on Canon 16.03 SUSPENDED for a periodof four (4) years

Casuga, with regard to the jewelry and watch

entrusted to him, said that Nevada pawned them

and thereafter instructed Casugas wife to redeem

them with the wife's money. He added that Nevada

then instructed his wife to sell what was pawned,

then use the proceeds to reimburse herself [for the

redemption price]. BUT THIS HAS NO EVIDENCE.

Pawnshop receipts would have provided the best

evidence under the circumstances. But they were

not presented, too.

Moreover, Casugas admission that the valuables are

indeed in his possession, without any adequate

reason, supports Nevadas version of the story.

Casugas failure to return such property or remit the

proceeds of the sale is a blatant violation of Canon

16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the

Code).

Casuga has duty to return them upon Nevadas

demand. His failure to do so renders him subject todisciplinary action. To be sure, he cannot use, as a

defense, the lack of a lawyer-client relationship as an

exonerating factor.

Facts:

Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada &

Sons, Inc., a family corporation at Mt. Crest Hotel

located at Legarda Road, Baguio City. She and

Casuga are members of the One in Jesus ChristChurch, a religious group which Casuga is one of the

elders. She has allowed the use of one of the

Hotels functions rooms for church services. And in

time, Casuga was able to gain her trust and

confidence.

Casuga, sometime in 2006 and Neva not knowing,

started to represent himself as the administrator of

the Hotel. In fact, on March 1, 2006, he also entered

into a contract of lease with a certain Jung Jong Chul

(Chul) covering an office space in the Hotel. Casuga

signed the lease contract over the printed name of

one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized the documenthimself.

Casuga was also able to acquire from her several

pieces of jewelry: a K diamond solitaire ring,

earrings with three diamonds each and a ring with

three (3) diamonds, with an aggregate value of PhP

300,000, and a solid gold Rolex watch with diamond

dials valued at USD 12,000. Casuga took possession

of the valuables in order to sell them and give the

proceeds to Nevada. However, despite repeated

demands by Nevada for Casuga to return thevaluables or otherwise remit the proceeds of the

sale, no jewelry or money was ever returned.

In compliance with a directive from the Court,

Casuga submitted an Affidavit[4] dated December 5,

2007, as comment on the administrative complaint.

In it, Casuga claims that Nevada informally instituted

him as the administrator of the Hotel in a limited

capacity but denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from

Chul. With regard to the pieces of jewelry and the

Rolex watch, Casuga stated that Nevada actually

pawned them in a pawnshop and that she later

asked his wife to redeem them using their own

money. Thereafter, Nevada asked Casugas wife to

sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the

proceeds of the sale.


2/15

CANON 17 CASES

AURORA D. CERDAN, - versus -ATTY. CARLO

GOMEZ,

SC Ruling on Canon 17 suspended from the practice

of law for six (6) months.

Atty. Gomez failed to account for the money he

received for Cerdan as a result of the compromise

agreement. He remitted the amount of 290,000.00

only, an amount substantially less than the share of

complainant. The complainants share from the FCB

savings accounts amounted to 442,547.88 but only

P290,000.00 was remitted by Atty. Gomez after

deducting his share.

Atty. Gomez has no right to unilaterally retain his

lawyers lien. Having obtained the funds in the

course of his professional employment, Atty. Gomez

had the obligation to account and deliver such funds

to his client when they became due, or upon

demand. Moreover, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT

between him and complainant that he could deduct

therefrom his claimed attorneys fees.

'

Facts:

Cerdan and widower Benjamin Rufino (Rufino) lived

together as husband and wife. During their

cohabitation, they bought several real properties

and had savings accounts at First Consolidated Bank

(FCB), (at the Quezon and Narra branches in

Palawan)-- all of which were IN RUFINO's NAME.

When Rufino died on December 28, 2004, Cerdan

sought the legal advice of Atty. Gomez as to what to

do with the properties left by Rufino, and paid Atty.Gomez attorneys fees in the amount of P152,000.00

(but only the amount of P100,000.00 was reflected

in the receipt).

She authorized Atty. Gomez, thru a special power of

attorney (SPA), to settle Rufinos savings account . It

was agreed a 50-50 sharing between Cerdan and the

children of Rufino, as proposed by the FCB counsel.

But such agreement was replaced by the

Compromise Agreement entered into by Atty.

Gomez, wherein the heirs of Rufino got 60% of the

share while she only received 40%. He also included

in the Compromise Agreement the savings accountin; when the scope of the SPA WAS ONLY the

account in FCB-Quezon branch. Atty. Gomez took

her bank book for the FCB account in Narra Branch

containing deposits in the amount of more or less

P165,000.00 and never returned it to her. He also

withdrew from her FCB accounts and thereafter gave

the amount of P290,000.00 and uttered, ITO NA

LAHAT ANG PERA MO AT ANG SA AKIN NAKUHA KO

NA.

Atty. Gomez was her counsel in a case against a

certain Romeo Necio (Necio) and paid him attorneys

fees and judicial fee in the amount of P15,000.00,

and P8,000.00, respectively. The parties agreed to

settle amicably and decided that Atty. Gomez would

collect from Necio the amount agreed upon - and

that as of the filing of the complaint, Atty. Gomez

has yet to remit to complainant the amount of

P12,000.00.


3/15

CANON 18 CASES

FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, - versus - ATTY. MANUEL

G. SAN JOSE

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 SUSPENDED from thepractice of law for a period of six (6) months

Respondent fell short of the diligence

required of a lawyer entrusted with a case. He was

hired by the De Enriquez on August 28, 1989, and

that San Jose sent the notice-to-vacate to the lessee

before the unlawful detainer case could be filed.

However, after nine months, respondent had done

nothing further in connection with the case.

A lawyer who undertakes to conduct an action

impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. San

Jose in this case failed to file the civil case aftersending a demand letter. The failure to file a

pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the

part of respondent. SECONDLY, this Court finds

reprehensible respondents failure to heed the

request of his client TO RETURN THE CASE

DOCUMENTS.

Respondent also relies on complainants letter,

informing him of her decision to withdraw the case.

According to the complainant, she resorted to the

letter so she could retrieve the records she

previously handed over to the respondent, but he

continued to refuse to return them. It may be notedthat the letter was sent to respondent a few days

BEFORE the lapse of the one-year prescriptive

period. If HE HAD earlier filed a case, there would

have been no need for complainant to resort to that

letter to get the records - in line with her plan to

have the Public Attorneys Office assist in filing the

appropriate case. Because of the respondents

failure to file the appropriate case, and his refusal to

return the documents, time ran out and the action

for unlawful detainer case was barred by

prescription.

Facts:

De Enriquez alleged that on August 28, 1989, she

hired the services of respondent Atty. San Jose for

the purpose of filing an unlawful detainer case

against one Rugerio Alipante, who defaulted in the

payment of monthly rentals on her property in

Taban, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. San Jose failed to

file the appropriate civil case, despite payment to

him of P2,000 attorneys fees, so she decided to

withdraw the case from respondent. She demanded

the return of the pertinent documents but despite

repeated demands, respondent refused and failed toreturn the documents. As a result, the action for

unlawful detainer prescribed. Her daughter who

worked for respondent was not paid her salary.

Complainant prayed that Atty. San Jose be disbarred

or suspended from the practice of law.

Respondent denied being negligent. He alleged

that he received a letter from the complainant

informing him that the lessee had already agreed to

vacate the premises, and thus, the filing of an

unlawful detainer case had become unnecessary.

Respondent also explained that he did not file the

case even before receiving complainants letterbecause there was a vacancy in the sala of the

Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Libmanan-

Cabusao, Camarines Sur. He claimed that he

informed complainant that the case could not be

filed until a new judge was appointed, but he

promised to file the case before the action

prescribed. Respondent claimed further that the

attorneys fee was P3,000 and that he had paid

complainants daughter P700 per month.


4/15

LUISITO BALATBAT, Complainant, vs ATTY. EDGARDO

ARIAS Y SANCHEZ, Respondent.

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 STERNLY WARNED that a

repetition of the same or similar act

Atty Sanchez received a notice of hearing for the

setting of the case for trial. He went to the City Court

on the appointed day. However, finding that plaintiff

and defendant (complainant herein) therein had not

yet arrived, he requested the clerk of court to cancel

the hearing on the ground that he had two (2)

criminal cases pending in the Court of First Instance

of Manila, Branches 17 and 29 which he had to

attend to. He then failed to verify the next hearing

date with the court. When asked why he failed to do

so, respondent declared that he forgot it and took

the word of the Clerk of Court that notices would be

sent to both parties. The hearing was re-scheduled,

the day plaintiff presented his evidence ex parte and

eventually judgment was rendered based solely

thereon; after which, execution started. Respondent

should have, at the very least, MOVED TO HAVE THE

HEARING postponed on the ground of conflict in his

scheduled hearings in other cases.

Indeed, the negligent failure of respondent to act

accordingly under the circumstances clearly negates

not only his claim that he "appeared in court always

mindful of his duties," but also his vow to serve hisclient WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE and not

neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

SC Ruling on Canon 18.04

He violated it because it mandates that a lawyer

keep the client informed of the status of the case

and respond within a reasonable time to a clients

request for information. A client must never be left

in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith

and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in

particular and the legal profession in general.

Facts:

Luisito Balatba engaged the services of respondent

to undertake his defense in the said civil case. He did

not attend the scheduled hearings because

respondent told him that there was no need to be

present. But when he verified the status of the case

from the then City Court of Manila, he was surprised

to learn that a Decision had already been rendered.

Complainant alleged that the enforcement of the

decision caused him and his family "untold miseries,embarrassment and public ridicule."

The city court declared complainant in default for

failure to appear during the hearing. Plaintiff

(opposing party) was, thereafter, allowed to present

evidence ex parte. After three days, a judgment

adverse to complainant was rendered, prompting

the plaintiff to move for execution ex-parte; Two

days thereafter, a Writ of Execution was issued.

Respondent claimed that the notice of the hearing of

the June 18, 1976 trial was "made to appear as

though signed by him." He insisted that it was not his

signature. He, likewise, asserted that contrary to

complainants allegations, he always tried to take

the complainant with him to the city court for all the

scheduled hearings; it was always the complainant

who, for one reason or another, could not go with

him.

Respondent further alleged that complainant hadfiled a Manifestation in the City Court terminating

his (respondents) legal services, and a new counsel

for complainant entered an appearance. Respondent

claimed that he could not have possibly opposed the

Ex Parte Motion for Execution filed in the civil case

since he was not furnished a copy thereof.9

Respondent prayed that complainant be punished

for contumacy for being motivated by ill will and

malice in filing the instant administrative complaint

against him.

The Court referred the complaint to the Office of the

Solicitor General for investigation.

Complainant testified that he had gone to the City

Court to make a follow-up on the status of the case

since respondent had not been communicating nor

collecting fees from him for two months. He then


5/15

discovered that a decision had already been

rendered.10 He went to respondents office to

inquire the status of his case, and respondent told

him that "they were on the loss." He asked

respondent to show him the copy of the decision,

and respondent replied that "it was already in

default." Complainant then demanded that therecords of the case be shown to him but again,

respondent refused.11

Respondent, for his part, claimed that it was

complainant who notified him of the adverse

decision and promised that he would verify this with

the city court.12 Respondent then requested the

complainant to return the next day. He insisted that

unlike the notices of previous hearings in the case,

he did not receive any notice from the City Court of

the supposed hearing that was reset on June 18,1976;13 that the signature appearing therein was

not his; and that he did not know who had affixed

the same.14 Thereafter, he informed the

complainant that he had already prepared a draft

pleading; that he would file it to have the decision

set aside; and that it could easily be proven that "the

signature appearing in the records was not his

signature."15


6/15

HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ, Complainant, v.

ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA, Respondent.


Atty. Bautista attributes his delay in filing theappropriate criminal case to the absence of

conciliation proceedings between complainant and

her siblings before the barangay as required under

Article 222 of the Civil Code and the Local

Government Code. However, this excuse is belied by

the Certification to File Action by the Office of the

Lupong Tagapamayapa, Office of the Barangay

Council, Barangay Daanghari, Navotas. The

Certification to File Action was issued on 1 July 2002,

which was MORE THAN 4 MONTHS before

complainant engaged respondents legal services on

25 November 2002. Respondents allegation that

complainant failed to inform him about the

existence of the Certification to File Action is

INVALID considering complainants determination to

file the case against her siblings. Clearly, respondent

has been negligent in handling complainants case.

In this case, complainant is asking for the refund of P

14,000 out of the P 15,000 acceptance fee

considering that, apart from sending a letter to the

City Engineer of Navotas City, respondent did

nothing more to advance his clients cause during the

6 months that complainant engaged his legalservices.

Facts:

On 25 November 2002, Voluntad-Ramirez engaged

the legal services of Bautista to file a complaint

against her siblings for encroachment of her right of

way. For his legal services, respondent demanded P

15,000 as acceptance fee, plus P 1,000 per court

appearance. Complainant then paid respondent the

P 15,000 acceptance fee. On 29 May 2003, or 6

months after she hired respondent, complainant

stopped the legal services of respondent because

respondent failed to file a complaint within a

reasonable period of time as requested by

complainant. Complainant then retrieved from

respondent the folder containing the documents and

letters pertaining to her case which complainant had

entrusted to respondent. Complainant claimed that

she was dissatisfied with the way respondent

handled her complaint considering that during the

six months that elapsed, respondent ONLY SENT A

LETTER to the City Engineers Office in Navotas City

concerning her complaint.

On 8 March 2004, complainant sent a letter to

respondent, reiterating that she was terminating the

services of respondent and that she was asking for

the refund of P 14,000 out of the P 15,000

acceptance fee. Complainant stated in her letter that

due to respondent's "failure to institute the desired

complaint on time" against her brothers and sisters,

complainant was compelled to hire the services of

another counsel to file the complaint. Respondent

failed to refund the P 14,000, prompting

complainant to file on 10 May 2005 her complaintdated 29 March 2005 with the Office of the Bar

Confidant of the Supreme Court. Complainant

charged respondent with violation of Canon 18, Rule

18.02, and Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, violation of the lawyers oath, grave

misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best

interest of the public.

In his defense, respondent alleges that complainant

initially wanted him to file an injunction case against

her siblings but later [changed her mind when she

was apprised of the expenses involved]. Respondent

then advised complainant that since her case

involves family members, earnest efforts toward a

compromise should be made in accordance with

Article 222 of the Civil Code and that since the

parties reside in the same barangay, the case must

be referred to the barangay in accordance with the

Local Government Code. Respondent also suggested

filing a criminal action instead of an injunction case.

The day after he was hired by complainant,

respondent wrote a letter to the City Engineer of

Navotas City pertaining to complainants case.

Respondent made several follow ups with the CityEngineers Office and even filed a case against the

City Engineer for nonfeasance under Republic Act

No. 6713. ALSO, when complainant voluntarily

withdrew her case from respondent, complainant

also retrieved the folder containing the documents

relevant to her case. It was ONLY AFTER 10 MONTHS

from severing respondents legal services that

complainant sent a letter dated 8 March 2004


7/15

demanding the refund of P 14,000 out of the P

15,000 acceptance fee. Respondent explains that

THE ACCEPTANCE FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE because

it covers the time and cost of research made

immediately before and after acceptance of the

case. Nevertheless, respondent alleges that he did

not ignore complainants request for a refund.Respondent claims that he sent a letter dated 17

March 2004, which stated that although it is their

law firms policy not to entertain requests for refund

of acceptance fee, they were willing to grant her a

fifty percent (50%) discount and for complainant to

contact them for her refund. In fact, respondent

stated that he sent text messages to complainants

lawyer, Atty. Bartolome, signifying respondents

willingness to refund the amount of P 9,000.

In her Reply-Affidavit, complainant stated that evenbefore she engaged respondents legal services, her

case was already referred to the barangay for

conciliation proceedings. However, complainants

siblings failed to appear which resulted in the

issuance on 1 July 2002 of a Certification to File

Action by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa,

Office of the Barangay Council, Barangay Daanghari,

Navotas.Respondent countered in his Position Paper

that complainant did not inform him of the existence

of the alleged Certification to File Action and that

the said certification was not part of the case folder

which respondent turned over to complainant when

his services was severed.


8/15

ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, versus ATTY. RAMIL E.

MACALALAD,

SC Ruling on Canon 18.03 SIX (6) MONTHS

SUSPENSION from the practice of law

Atty. Macalalad failed to file the required petition.

He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it

was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them.

At any rate, we reject Atty. Macalalads defense that

it was his clients who failed to contact him. Although

no previous communication transpired between

Atty. Macalalad and his clients, Atty. Solidon, who

contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf of his

relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the

filing of the present disbarment case. Atty. Solidon

even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of the registration application with

Atty. Macalalad.

Ms. Cabo-Borata succeeded several times in getting

in touch with Atty. Macalalad and on those

occasions asked him about the progress of the case.

To use Ms. Cabo-Boratas own words, she received

no clear-cut answers from him; he just informed

her that everything was on process.

The monetary consideration and the fixed period of

performance should have made it more imperative

for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and

initiate communication with his clients. He had been

given initial payment and should have at least

undertaken initial delivery of his part of the

engagement.

We further find that Atty. Macalalads conduct

refutes his claim of willingness to perform his

obligations. If Atty. Macalalad truly wanted to filethe petition, he could have acquired the necessary

information from Atty. Solidon to enable him to file

the petition even pending the IBP Commission on

Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now stand,

he did not take any action to initiate communication.

Facts:

Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of

the DENR in Tacloban City. Although he is in publicservice, the DENR Secretary has given him the

authority to engage in the practice of law.

While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October

2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty.

Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-

Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty.

Macalalad to handle the JUDICIAL TITLING of a parcel

of land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and

owned by HIS (Atty. Solidons) relatives. For a

consideration of P80,000.00, Atty. Macalaladaccepted the task to be completed within a period of

8 months. Atty. Macalalad received P50,000.00 as

initial payment; the remaining balance of P30,000.00

was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the

certificate of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for

registration over the property sought to be titled up

to the present time.

Atty. Solidon tried to contact Atty. Macalalad to

follow-up on the status of the case 6 months after he

paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone

calls and text messages to their known

acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a

letter sent by courier to Atty. Macalalad. However,

he did not receive any communication from Atty.

Macalalad.

Atty. Macalalad responded posited that the delay in

the filing of the petition for the titling of the

property was caused by his clients FAILURE TO

COMMUNICATE with him. He also explained that he

had no intention of reneging on his obligation, as he

had already prepared the draft of the petition. He

failed to file the petition simply because he still

lacked the needed documentary evidence that his

clients should have furnished him.


9/15

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA, - versus

- ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA,

SC Ruling on Canon 18.02, 03, 18.04

Atty. Elayda even admitted that the spouses Arandanever knew of the scheduled hearings because said

spouses never came to him and that he did not know

the spouses whereabouts. It is the counsels

primary duty to inform his clients of the status of

their case and the orders which have been issued by

the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to

make an inquiry about the developments in their

case. Close coordination between counsel and client

is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the

case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of

the case. Besides, it is elementary procedure for a

lawyer and his clients to exchange contact details at

the initial stages in order to have constant

communication with each other. Again, Atty.

Elaydas excuse that he did not have the spouses

Arandas contact number and that he did not know

their address is simply unacceptable.

Atty. Elaydas explanation is invalid, that he cannot

be faulted for missing the February 14, 2006 hearing

of the spouses Arandas case because he was just at

the other branch of the RTC for another case and left

a message with the court stenographer to just call

him when [the spouses Aranda] come. In the firstplace, the counsel should not be at another hearing

when he knew very well that he has a scheduled

hearing for the *spouses Arandas+ case at the same

time. His attendance at the hearing should not be

made to depend on the whether [the spouses

Aranda] will come or not. The Order submitting the

decision was given at the instance of the other

partys counsel mainly because of his absence there.

Atty. Elayda did not act upon the RTC order

submitting the spouses Arandas case for decision.

Thus, a judgment was rendered against the spouses

Aranda for a sum of money. Notice of said judgment

was received by Atty. Elayda who again did not file

any notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration

and thus, the judgment became final and executory.

Atty. Elayda did not also inform the spouses Aranda

of the outcome of the case. The spouses Aranda

came to know of the adverse RTC judgment, which

by then had already become final and executory,

only when a writ of execution was issued and

subsequently implemented by the sheriff.

Facts:

On February 14, 2006 hearing of the said case, the

case was ordered submitted for decision [the

spouses Aranda] and [Atty. Elayda] did not appear.

The order setting this case for hearing on February

14, 2006 was sent only to [Atty. Elayda] and no

notice was sent to [the spouses Aranda] that is they

were unaware of said hearing and [Atty. Elayda]never informed them of the setting. Also, despite

receipt of the order dated February 14, 2006, [Atty.

Elayda] never informed them of such order

notwithstanding the follow-up they made of their

case to him.

[Atty. Elayda] did not lift any single finger to have

the order dated February 14, 2006 reconsidered

and/or set aside as is normally expected of a counsel

devoted to the cause of his client. In view of the

inaction of [Atty. Elayda] the court naturally

rendered a judgment dated March 17, 2006 adverse

to [the spouses Aranda] which copy thereof was sent

only to [Atty. Elayda] and [the spouses Aranda] did

not receive any copy thereof, certified xerox copy of

the decision is attached. They were totally unaware

of said judgment as [Atty. Elayda] had not again

lifted any single finger to inform them of such

adverse judgment and that there is a need to take a

remedial recourse thereto. [Atty. Elayda] did not

even bother to file a notice of appeal hence the

judgment became final and executory hence a writ

of execution was issued upon motion of the plaintiff

[Martin Guballa] in the said case. Sheriff IV LeandroR. Madarag implemented the writ of execution and

it was only at this time that [the spouses Aranda]

became aware of the judgment of the Court. They

found out that they have already lost their case and

worst the decision had already become final and

executory.


10/15

Also, despite their plea for a reasonable period to

take a remedial recourse of the situation (the Sheriff

initially gave them fifteen (15) days), Sheriff

Madarag forcibly took possession and custody of

their Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No. 529.

Atty. Elayda filed his Answer[5] dated September 1,

2006, in which he narrated: Thi case also referred to

[Atty. Elayda] sometime December 2004 after the

[spouses Aranda] and its former counsel failed to

appear in court on February 7, 2005. From

December 2004, the [spouses Aranda] did not

bother to contact [Atty. Elayda] to prepare for the

case and in fact on May 30, 2005, [Atty. Elayda] had

to ask for postponement of the case for reason that

he still have to confer with the [spouses Aranda]

who were not around. The [spouses Aranda] from

December 2004 did not even bother to follow uptheir case in court just if to verify the status of their

case and that it was only on July 19, 2006 that they

verified the same and also the only time they tried to

contact [Atty. Elayda]. During the scheduled hearing

of the case on February 14, 2006, [Atty. Elayda] was

in fact went to RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City and

asked Mrs. Edith Miano to call him in Branch 73

where he had another case if the [spouses Aranda]

show up in court so that [Atty. Elayda] can talk to

them but obviously the [spouses Aranda] did not

appear and Mrs. Miano did not bother to call [Atty.

Elayda].


11/15

CANON 19 CASES

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES, Complainant, vs. ATTY.

JACINTO D. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

SC Ruling on Canon 19.01 - Reprimanded

Even if the Court agrees with the that Atty

Jimenez is not guilty of forum shopping (as counsel

for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, filed a special

civil action assailing the Order that [appoints the

accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as auditor];

and, a regular appeal that [assails the Order that

directed the payment of commission to

complainant.] It is evident that there is identity of

parties but different causes of action and reliefs

sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty of forumshopping) However, respondent violated Rule 19.01

of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Before

Atty Jimenez assisted the heirs in filing the criminal

complaint against herein Atty Briones, he sent

demand letters to the Briones to comply with the

Order of Judge Tipon [to deliver the residue of the

estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson].

Considering that Briones did not reply to the

demand letters, Jimenez filed said criminal

complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey

the lawful order of the court.

The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed

Order(direc payment to complainant) which [directs

complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in

proportion to their shares]. TO BE MORE ETHICAL,

Jimenez should have first filed the proper motion

with the RTC for execution of the third part of said

Order INSTEAD of immediately resorting to the filing

of criminal complaint against him. The filing of the

criminal complaint was EVIDENTLY PREMATURE

because the RTC would still have to determine and

define the residue referred to in the subject Order.

Jimenez claims that he acted in good faith and in

fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted

the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against

herein Briones after the Briones ignored the demand

letters sent to him; and that a lawyer owes his client

the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The

Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that

respondent should have filed the proper motion

with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue

of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject

complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.

Facts:

Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the

Estate of Luz J. Henson. Respondent Atty. Jacinto D.

Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of the late Luz J.

Henson (Heirs). On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed

with the RTC a notice of appeal from the Order

[commanding the payment for Briones' commission],

questioning the payment of commission to Atty.

Briones. On April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with

the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari,

Prohibition and Mandamus, dassailing the Order

dated March 12, 2002 [that appoints the firm of

Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at the

expense of the late Luz J. Henson], as well as the

Order commanding payment, insofar as it denied

their motion for recommendation.

On July 26, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a

Petition for Mandamus alleging that the respondentJudge therein unlawfully refused to comply with his

ministerial duty to approve their appeal which was

perfected on time. Atty. Briones, in his Comment,

contends that the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson,

represented by Atty. Jimenez, are guilty of forum

shopping for which reason, the petition should be

dismissed. 6

On February 11, 2003, the CA without touching on

the forum shopping issue, granted the petition and

ordered the respondent Judge to give due course tothe appeal taken by Atty. Jimenez from the Order

dated April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the

payment of commission to Atty. Briones. Atty.

Briones then filed with this Court a Petition for

Review on Certiorari praying for the dismissal of the

appeal from the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar as

it ordered the payment of commission to him, as the


12/15

Special Administrator of the estate of the deceased

Luz J. Henson.


13/15

VALERIANA U. DALISAY, -versus- ATTY. MELANIO

MAURICIO, JR.,


In an ironic twist of fate, Atty. Mauricio became the

accuser of complainant. In his fourth argument, he

accuses Dalisay of offering falsified documentary

evidence in the civil case, prompting him to file

falsification cases against her. He thus justifies his

inability to render legal services to complainant.

Assuming that complainant indeed offered falsified

documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 00-044, will

it be sufficient to exonerate respondent? We

believe not. First, Canon 19.02 outlines the

procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated

fraud in the course of a legal proceeding. As a

lawyer, instead of inaction, he should have

confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her

fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses,

then he should terminate his relationship with her.

Understandably, respondent failed to follow the

above-cited Rule because there is no truth to his

claim that he did not render legal service to

complainant because she falsified the documentaryevidence in Civil Case No.00-044 (TOTOO NA KAYA

LANG SIYA NAGRENDER NG ADVICE AY DAHIL SA

GANUNG REASON). He learned of the alleged

falsification LONG AFTER complainant had

terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was

a result of his active search for a justification of his

negligence in the Civil Case. He verified the

authenticity of complainants title only after the

news of his suspension spread in the legal

community. Obviously, in filing falsification charges

against complainant, respondent was motivated by

vindictiveness.

In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an

attorney begins with his or her retainer. It gives rise

to a relationship between an attorney and a client

that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very

delicate, exacting, and confidential character,

requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith.

Facts:

On October 13, 2001, Valeriana U. Dalisay, engaged

Atty Melancio's services as counsel in Civil Case

entitled Lucio De Guzman, etc., complainants, v.

Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent, pending before

the Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal.

Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and

attorneys fees in the total amount of P56,000.00

from complainant, respondent never rendered legal

services for her. As a result, she terminated the

attorney-client relationship and demanded the

return of her money and documents, but respondent

refused.

Ffor the amount of P56,000.00 paid by the

complainant, no action had been taken nor any

pleadings prepared by the respondent except his

alleged conferences and opinions rendered when

complainant frequented his law office. The

respondent is required to refund the amount of

P56,000.00 to the complainant, and surprisingly, that

the complaint be dismissed.

Respondent went to the MTC Binangonan, Rizal toverify the status of Civil Case. There, he learned of

the trial courts Decision holding that the tax

declarations and title submitted by complainant

are not official records of the Municipal Assessor

and the Registry of Deed. Thereupon, respondent

filed a Sworn Affidavit Complaint against

complainant charging her with fraud. He alleged

that complainant offered tampered evidence.

In this motion for reconsideration, respondent raises

the following arguments: Complainant did notengage his services as counsel in Civil Case but only

for purpose of filing two new petitions, a petition for

declaration of nullity of title and a petition for review

of a decree.


14/15

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE,

INC. (RBCI) BOHOL, - versus - ATTY. JAMES

BENEDICT FLORIDO,

SC Ruling on Canon 19

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer

shall represent his client with zeal within the

bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07

of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon

his client compliance with the law and

principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ

only fair and honest means to attain the lawful

objectives of his client.[8] It is his duty to

counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawfulmethods in seeking justice and refrain from

doing an intentional wrong to their

adversaries.[9]

We agree with Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.s

conclusion:

Lawyers are indispensable instruments of

justice and peace. Upon taking theirprofessional oath, they become guardians of

truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they

appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as

representatives of a party but, first and

foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their

duty to protect their clients interests is

secondary to their obligation to assist in the

speedy and efficient administration of justice.

While they are obliged to present every

available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity

to their clients must always be made within theparameters of law and ethics, never at the

expense of truth, the law, and the fair

administration of justice.[10]

A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the

administration of justice. To that end, his

clients success is wholly subordinate. His

conduct ought to and must always be

scrupulously observant of the law and

ethics.[11] Any means, not honorable, fair and

honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even

in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients

cause, is condemnable and unethical.[12]

Facts:

Atty. Florido and his clients, Dr. Domeciano

Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr.Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel

(Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force

and intimidation, with the use of armed men,

forcibly took over the management and the

premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted

Cirilo A. Garay (Garay), the bank manager,

destroyed the banks vault, and installed their

own staff to run the bank.

In his comment, respondent denied RBCIs

allegations. Respondent explained that he

acted in accordance with the authority granted

upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group,

the lawfully and validly elected Board of

Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was

merely effecting a lawful and valid change of

management. Respondent alleged that a

termination notice was sent to Garay but he

refused to comply. On 1 April 2002, to ensure a

smooth transition of managerial operations,

respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos

group went to the bank to ask Garay to stepdown. However, Garay reacted violently and

grappled with the security guards long firearm.

Respondent then directed the security guards

to prevent entry into the bank premises of

individuals who had no transaction with the

bank. Respondent, through the orders of the


15/15

Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the

locks of the banks vault.

Documents

010914_ETHICS_Canon16 (Last Case) to 19