CANON 16: LIEN FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES & CANON 17: FIDELITY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE

MANALANG V. ANGELES

FACTS:Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the complainants

in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against their employer, the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, before the National Labor Relations. Respondent was their counsel. Judgment was rendered in their favor, in the amount of P6,500. After the decision became final, a writ of execution issued. However, without authority from his clients, respondent compromised the award and was able to collect P5,500 only.

Complainants said they made several demands upon respondent to turn over to them the amount collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%), but Atty. Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.

Respondent counsel stated that he offered to give complainants their money, but they insisted that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount of P2,000, representing the amount discounted by the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and other administrative expenses." Respondent claimed that to accept complainants' proposition meant that he "would not be compensated for prosecuting and handling, the case.”ISSUE:

Whether respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be suspended from the practice of law because of grave misconduct related to his clients' funds.HELD

Where a member of the bar stands charged with malpractice, the proceedings are not meant solely to rule on his culpability but also to determine if the lawyer concerned is possessed of that good moral character, which is a condition precedent to the privilege of practicing law and continuing in the practice thereof.

Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the workers concerned . A client has every right to expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken or withheld from him, save by the rules of law validly applied. By compromising the judgment without the consent of his clients, respondent not only went against the stream of

judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights. In so doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. In the instant case, the records clearly and abundantly point to respondent's receipt of and failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of P4,550 intended for his clients. This is a clear breach of Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Moreover, his excuse in his answer, that he should be allowed to deduct sheriff's fees and other administrative expenses before delivering the money due his clients, is unsatisfactory. Respondent clearly failed to comply with the Rules of Court in the enforcement of an attorney's liens. The records of this case are barren of any statement of respondent's claims for lien or payment of his alleged disbursements. Nor did respondent present any showing that he caused written notices of his lien on the money judgment to be served upon his clients and to the losing party

His act of holding on to his clients' money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. He was clinging to something which was not his, and to which he had no right. He appears oblivious of the admonition that a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.This is the first case on record against him, a fact which could be taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months. suspension appears to us in order.

CANON 16: LIEN FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

TANHUECO V. DE DUMO (full text attached)

CANON 17: FIDELTY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE

CANTILLER V. POTENCIANO

Facts: Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court. 

An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against the latter. A notice to vacate was then issued against Cantiller. 

Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment”. 

The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded from the complainant P l,000.00 as attorney's fee. However the judge of the said court asked the respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship. 

Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano did not succeed in locating the judge. 

Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter. The amount was allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and P 1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed in order for the complainant to retain the possession of the property. But later on Cantiller found out that the amounts were not necessary to be paid. A demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the amounts were not returned. 

Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed. 

Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller. 

Held: When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had

reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics. 

The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact. 

Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

SOLATAN V. INOCENTES

Facts: Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. Solatan’s sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan and other members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Atty.Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the attorney’s fees. Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow

complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano’s advice, complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying. Complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty.Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility. ISSUE:1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the Code

of Professional Responsibility2)  Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility 

HELD: All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful owner of the incorrectly leviedproperties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hint that infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal.

2. Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of hislaw firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility. 

Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings withcomplainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge.

VILLAFUERTE V. CORTEZ

*attached full text (3 pages)*

CANON 18: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Reontoy V. Ibadlit

Facts: A complaint filed by Corazon T. Reontoy for the disbarment of her counsel, Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, for having been negligent in handling her case for partition, accounting and reconveyance then pending with the RTC Br. 4, Kalibo, Aklan

Ibadlit admits to being the lawyer of Reontoy and that he received a copy of the adverse decision of the Civil Case of Reontoy on June 19, 1989. He admits to having filed an appeal on July 17, 1989 when the expiry date was July 4, 1989.

His defense was that, he informed the brother of Reontoy (Proculo) of the adverse decision and that making an appeal was futile. He further states that he believed that the message was passed and that he intentionally did not file an appeal anymore. However, he was informed that Reontoy wanted to appeal.

Proculo testified before the IBP that he had no knowledge and authority regarding the case of Reontoy. Reontoy also informed the IBP that upon visiting Ibadlit’s office, he merely told her that the period for appeal has passed and just returned the case records.

Issue: WON respondent is administratively liable for his actions.Held:

Yes. A lawyer has no right to waive his client’s right to appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03, Canon 18, of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."

Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully and well as to protect the rights and interests of his client. The record shows that complainant lost the case and suffered the corresponding loss of her real property in Kalibo, Aklan, consisting of her undivided share or interest in five (5) valuable parcels of land. Certainly, complainant paid dearly for respondent's ignorance, laxity, if not incompetence, by failing to appeal on time.

Atty. Liberato R. Ibadlit, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof.

Motan V. Cadiao (full text attached; 2 pages)

Sencio V. Calvadores (full text attached; 2 pages)

Hernandez V. Padilla (full text attached; 4 pages)

Edquibal V. Ferrer (full text attached; 4 pages)

People V. Ingco (full text attached; 1 page)

Barbuco V. Beltran (full text attached also)

Facts:Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Beltran for malpractice of law. Complainant, through her son, Benito B. Sy, engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, which adverese to the complainants interest. On the same day, complainant, through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent the total sum of P3,500.00 for payment of the docket fees.

However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA for failure to file Appellant's brief. The brief was only filed by respondent 43 days after the deadline of submission of the same.

When asked to comment, respondent tried to evade liability by alleging that he met a vehicular accident, which incapacitated him for several days, thus he cannot finish the appellants brief. Moreover, he sustained injuries in the head, which as a result respondent lost track of  schedules of hearings and deadlines for submitting briefs.

Issue: Whether or not respondent's failure to file appellant's brief warrants sanctions.

Held:Yes. the SC enunciated that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states:A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.  Failure to file brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law firm composed of not just one lawyer.  This is shown by the receipt he issued to complainant and the pleadings which he signed for and on behalf of the Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office.  As such, respondent could have asked any of his partners in the law office to file the Appellant’s Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said pleading.

Moreover, every member of the Bar should always bear in mind that every case that a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.  A lawyer’s fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client within the bounds of the law.  The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and he should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. "

Short Digest/No facts: Lawyer suspended for failing to file appellant’s brief resulting to the dismissal of his client’s case. Rule 18.03 (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable”).

An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to file brief within the reglementary period certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. That Respondent was involved in a vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as a result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing his pleadings on time considering that he was a member of a law firm composed of not just one lawyer. Respondent could have asked any of his partners in the law office to file the Appellant’s Brief for him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extensionof Time to file the said pleading. Failure to timely file a pleading is by itself inexcusablenegligence on Respondent’s part and his liability is further compounded by his failure to maintain an open line of communication with his client, in violation of Rule 18.04 a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information

Legarda V. CA (attached full text)

Suarez V. CA (attached 3 pages full text)

A petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R. SP No. 17488 and to direct respondent trial court to reopen the joint trial of Criminal Cases No. 7284 to 7296, 7302-7303, and 7650.

On May 7, 1985 petitioner was charged in Criminal Cases No. 7284-7296, and No. 7302-7303 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Angeles City with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Check Law. On August 21, 1985, petitioner was again charged in the same court with the same offense in Criminal Case No. 7650. All these cases were consolidated for trial and decision in Branch LXI of the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region in Angeles

City, at that time presided over by the Honorable Ramon C. Tuazon who has since retired. At the arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" to all the informations against her. She then posted bail in all the cases and was granted provisional liberty.

At the trial of the cases, petitioner did not appear in court despite notices sent to her residence as appearing on the record and to her bondsmen. Her counsel de parte, Atty. Vicente San Luis appeared in her behalf during the time the prosecution was presenting its evidence up to October 20, 1987 when it was the turn of the defense to present its evidence. However, the hearing on said date was postponed because of the absence of the private prosecutor and the continuation of the hearing was reset to November 19, 1987. On said date, Atty. Buen Zamar entered a special appearance for Atty. San Luis as counsel for the accused without, however, the consent of petitioner. From said date Atty. San Luis did not appear in court as he had left for the United States of America and has not returned since then, without informing petitioner or withdrawing his appearance. Atty. Zamar, together with the prosecution, asked for deferment of the hearing that day as he was not conversant with the facts of the case, and the continuation of hearing was reset to January 6, 1988, on which date Atty. Zamar again asked for postponement and the hearing was reset to February 3, 1988. However, also on January 6, 1988, the trial court issued an order forfeiting in favor of the government the bonds posted by petitioner for her provisional liberty in view of the failure of her bondsmen to produce her at the scheduled hearing of the cases against her.

Notices were continually sent to Atty. San Luis’ address and the petitioner's bondsmen and served by personal service by the court's process server at her address of record upon her mother who informed the process server that petitioner had been out of the country for almost two years already. Her mother did not forward the notice to petitioner.

On May 31, 1988, when Criminal Case No. 7650 was called for promulgation of judgment, the trial court appointed Atty. Augusto Panlilio as counsel de oficio to represent the absent

petitioner. The judgment of conviction of petitioner was promulgated by the reading of the decision in open court by the Branch Clerk of Court and furnishing the parties through their respective counsel present in court with copies of the decision. Likewise, copies of the decision were sent by registered mail to petitioner

On December 31, 1988, petitioner was arrested and detained in the local jail of Angeles City.On February 6, 1989, petitioner, now represented by a new counsel de parte filed three motions, namely:

(1)for temporary release as she was pregnant and allegedly suffering from a heart ailment; (2) to set aside promulgation of judgment; and (3) to re-open trial. The prosecution opposed the motions The trial court then denied the motions to set aside judgment and to re-open trial, but with regard to the motion for temporary release, directed that "should a medical examination or confinement in the hospital be necessary, the court may allow the accused under guard to consult a physician or enter a hospital for medical treatment."

Issue: whether or not petitioner was denied her day in court due to negligence of her lawyer

Held. Yes.

The legal difficulty petitioner finds herself in is imputable to the negligence of her de parte counsel, Atty. Vicente San Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case without formally withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be permanently staying in the U.S.A. so that petitioner could appoint another counsel.A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learningand ability (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility; Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 157). A lawyer is required to exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do (Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 174). Among his duties to his client is attending to the hearings of the case (People's Homesite and

Housing Corp. vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471 [1964]; Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 175).

Clearly, petitioner was deprived of her right to present and prove her defense due to the negligence of her counsel. The appearance of a certain Atty. Buen Zamar is of no comment as there was no client-attorney relationship between him and petitioner who did not engage his services to represent her in said cases. The fact that notices of the promulgation of judgment were sent to petitioner at her address of record produced no legal consequence because notice to a party is not effective notice in law (Elli vs. Ditan, 5 SCRA 503 [1962]; Mata vs. Rita Legarda, Inc. 7 SCRA 227 [1963]).

Court rules, therefore, that under the facts of the case, petitioner was deprived of due process of law. It is the better part of judicial wisdom and prudence to accord the petitioner the opportunity to prove her defense. It is abhorrent to the judicial conscience to consign petitioner to the ordeals of imprisonment without affording her full opportunity to present her evidence including, of course, the assistance of competent counselling.

The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to reopen Criminal Cases No. 7284-7296, 7302-7303, and 7650 for the reception of evidence for the defense.

Perea V. Almadro (full text attached)

Blanza V. Arcangel (full text 2 pages)