CASE 125: Ma. Libertad SJ Cantiller v. Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano

FACTS: Complainant lost an ejectment case and was issued to vacate the

rented premises. Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a

certain Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced

them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the parties "impliedly

agreed" that respondent would handle their case.

In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to sign by

respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly

conceived, and haphazardly composed 3 petition for annulment of

judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the

necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the judge

who would hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close friend). However,

when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding

judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case on the

ground 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.

Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed

complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file another case

with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession of the

apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the

amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00) allegedly to be deposited

with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment

and another one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00) to cover the expenses of

the suit. Respondent stressed to the complainant the need and urgency

of filing the new complaint.

At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118 on

October 30, 1987, respondent, contrary to his promise that he would

secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as counsel for

complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as

replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was

obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046

was eventually enforced and executed.

Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that there was

really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P l0,000.00)

relative to Civil Case No. 55210. After further inquiry, she found out that in

fact there was no such deposit made. Thus, on December 23,1987,

complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of

the total amount of eleven thousand pesos (P 11,000.00) which the former

earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never answered and the

money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this

administrative complaint against herein respondent.

ISSUE/S: WON Respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

HELD: Yes, this Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the

charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law

for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has

rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law.

RATIO: 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 in Civil Case No. 55118 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

Santiago v. Fojas: ―Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the

lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust

and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with

competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with

wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire

devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and

defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and

ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by

the rules of law, legally applied.‖

The fact that, as claimed by him, he is a member of the IBP commission

investigating complaints against members of the bar all the more should

have impressed on him his duty of fidelity to his client's cause. That he

returned the money paid to him does not diminish his responsibility but

only mitigates the penalty.

On the other hand, there is no merit in Carino's claim that, as a result of

Atty. Delos Reyes' failure to file the complaint for threats, prescription set

in. Pursuant to Art. 90, in relation to Art. 283 of the Revised Penal Code, the

prescriptive period for filing a complaint for threats is five years. In any

event, the interests of Carino and that of her father are not altogether

without legal protection as they can controvert the charges against them

in the proceedings before the trial court

CASE 130: Victoria Legarda vs CA, New Cathay House

FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land and the

improvements thereon. Petitioner entered into a leased agreement with

the respondent thru its representative, Roberto Cabrera, Jr. of the

property for a period of five years that the rental is 25K per month with 5%

escalation per year. Respondent deposited the down payment but

petitioner failed and refused to execute and sign the same despite

demands of the respondent. Respondent suffered damages due to the

delay in the renovation and opening of its restaurant business.

Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for specific performance.

Petitioner engaged the services of the counsel to handle her case. But her

counsel failed to take any action for the case. So the property was sold by

the sheriff thru public auction. After one year redemption period expired

w/out the petitioner redeeming the property and the sheriff issued a final

deed of sale. Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events, petitioner

prevailed upon her counsel to seek the appropriate relief.

ISSUE/S: Was her counsel negligent of the case? If he was, should she be

bound by such negligence?

HELD: Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this case, he has

miserably failed in his duty to exercise his utmost learning and ability in

maintaining his client's cause. The gross negligence of the late Dean

Coronal in handling, nay mishandling, petitioner's case, docketed as Civil

Case No. Q-43811 in the court a quo, is actually beyond question as this

Court had declared in a per curiam Resolution dated June 10, 1992, 34

where Coronel was meted a six (6)-month suspension from the practice of

law, which suspension order was renewed for another six (6) months in

another Resolution dated March 31, 1993.

RATIO: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth

and zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of

his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing can be taken or

withheld from his client except in accordance with the law. He should

present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his

client's cause, regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of

his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that

he may displease the judge or the general public.

It is not only a case of simple negligence as found by the appellate court,

but of reckless and gross negligence, so much so that his client was

deprived of her property without due process of law. The Court finds that

the negligence of counsel in this case appears to be so gross and

inexcusable. This was compounded by the fact, that after petitioner gave

said counsel another chance to make up for his omissions by asking him to

file a petition for annulment of the judgment in the appellate court, again

counsel abandoned the case of petitioner in that after he received a

copy of the adverse judgment of the appellate court, he did not do

anything to save the situation or inform his client of the judgment. He

allowed the judgment to lapse and become final.

She should be bound by the decision because neither Cathay nor

Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of Legarda‘s

counsel. The common law maxim finds application in this case, ―between

two parties innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong

to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.

CASE 133: Natividad Uy vs. Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin

FACTS:Natividad was the defendant in an ejectment case filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court to defend her rights, Natividad engaged the services of Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin who timely filed an Answer to the complaint for ejectment. Required to file a Position Paper, respondent, however, failed to file one for and on behalf of Natividad. Eventually, a decision was rendered by the MTC against Natividad. Natividad, through Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin, elevated the case to the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal. In an Orderdated May 25, 2004, the RTC dismissed the appeal solely because of the failure of Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin to file a memorandum on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time. Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, Natividad initiated the disbarment case against respondent, before the IBP. Natividad averred that she gave her full trust and confidence to Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin, but the latter failed miserably in his duty as a lawyer and advocate. She also claimed that respondent‘s failure to file the required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence and gross negligence, which caused grave injury to Natividad.Lastly, Natividad alleged that not only did Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin fail to file the required pleadings, he also was remiss in informing her of the status of the case. For his part, Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin admitted that Natividad obtained his legal services, but no legal fee was ever paid to him. Respondent explained that he could not submit an intelligible position paper, because the contract between Natividad and her lessor had long expired. He added that he failed to file the position paper and memorandum on appeal, because Natividad told him that she would work out the transfer of ownership to her of the land subject matter of the ejectment case. In effect, Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin said that he did not submit the required pleadings, because he knew that the law favored the plaintiff as against Natividad in the ejectment

WON the lawyer violated canon 18 section 3.

HELD: YES, he violated it.

RATIO:Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client‘s cause. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his client‘s counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client‘s interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor; and his client may reasonably expect him to discharge his obligations diligently. It must be recalled that the MTC required the parties to submit their respective position papers. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard of the court order. In addition Atty. Braulio RG Tansinin failed to file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainant‘s appeal was then pending. The case was dismissed on that ground alone. Respondent‘s failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Resposibility.

CASE 134: Spouses Garcia vs. Atty. Rolando S. Bala, A.C. No. 5039,

November 25, 2005

FACTS: Complainants Spouses Garcia engaged the services of respondent

Atty. Bala to appeal to the CA the adverse Decision of the Department of

Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB). Instead, Atty. Bala

erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. Under Rule 43 of the

Rules of Court, appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be filed

with the CA through a verified petition for review. Because of Atty. Bala‘s

error, the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed, to the prejudice

of his clients.Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed before this Court a

Letter-Complaint against Atty. Rolando S. Bala.

The Court required Atty. Bala to comment on the Complaint. He failed to

comply; thus, he was presumed to have waived his right to be heard. In

its Resolution, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation,

report, and recommendation.

Investigating IBP Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa found Atty. Bala guilty

of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board of Governors

of the IBP passed a Resolution which adopted with modification the

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating commissioner. It

recommended that Atty. Bala should be reprimanded and suspended

from the practice of law for six months; and that he should return, within

thirty days from his receipt of the Decision, the amount of P9,200, with

legal interest from the filing of the present Complaint with this Court.

ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Bala should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. He should be disciplined. Atty. Rolando S. Bala is found guilty of

negligence and conduct unbecoming a lawyer; he is suspended from the

practice of law for six months.

RATIO: Rule 18.03 provides that ―a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render

him liable.‖

Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to

the cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence

reposed in them. A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every

remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the

lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

Evidently, respondent failed to champion the cause of his clients with

wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Despite adequate time, he did

not familiarize himself with the correct procedural remedy as regards their

case. Worse, he repeatedly assured them that the supposed petition had

already been filed.

Since he effectively waived his right to be heard, the Court can only

assume that there was no valid reason for his failure to file a petition for

review, and that he was therefore negligent.

Under the present factual circumstances, respondent should return the

money paid by complainants.CASE 135: Felisa Joven-De Jesus vs. PNB, et. al., G.R. No. L-19299,

November 28, 1964

FACTS: The case at bar presents a procedural question on the dismissal of

in appeal as perfected out of time. On September 15, 1956, Feliza Joven

De Jesus filed a civil case against Philippine National Bank (PNB), Del

Carmen Branch at the CFI of Pampanga. The Court rendered a decision

ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P3,274.98 with legal

interest thereon at the rate of 6% a year from the date of the filing of the

complaint. until the principal shall have been fully paid, plus the other sum

of P500.00 as attorney's fees of the said plaintiff. On March 16, 1961

defendant PNB filed its notice of appeal and a motion for extension of

time to file record on appeal. On March 17, 1961, it filed its record on

appeal and appeal bond. However, its appeal was dismissed on that day

by the court on plaintiff Joven De Jesus‘ motion as filed out of time

because the registry return card showed receipt by PNB of its copy of the

decision on February 13, 1961.

PNB filed a "motion for reconsideration and relief from, and/or to set aside

the order of March 17, 1961." It alleged that movant's failure to appeal on

time was due to "accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence," as

supported by affidavits annexed to the motion. The Court denied the

motion on May 18, 1961. Defendant bank has appealed from the orders

of March 17, 1961 and May 18, 1961.

The record will show that copy of the decision sent to appellant's counsel

in its legal department was received on February 13, 1961. In its motion

filed, it stated that the registered mail containing said copy was received

from the post office on February 13, 1961 by Eugenio Magpoc. Although

the latter is postal mail and delivery clerk of appellant's cashier

department, his affidavit states that "as such, one of my duties is to get

and receive from the Post Office all registered mail matters addressed to

the Philippine National Bank, its personnel and different departments"

PNB admitted having filed its notice of appeal, record on appeal and

appeal bond beyond the 30-day period, but contended in its motion of

March 22, 1961, that the delay was due to "accident, mistake and/or

excusable negligence." In support of such contention, it is alleged that on

February 13, 1961 the registered letter was given by the bank's postal mail

clerk Eugenio Magpoc to Feliciano Jimenez, Jr., registered mail clerk of

appellant's cashier department. Due to volume of work, Feliciano

Jimenez, Jr. delivered it to the receiving clerk of appellant's legal

department only on February 15, 1961 and failed to inform the latter that it

was received two days before. Thereupon, it was stamped by said

receiving clerk as received on February 15, 1961. On the basis of this date,

appellant's counsel computed the period to appeal.

ISSUE/S: WON the counsel of the appellant neglected the period for

appeal in the case at bar.

HELD: Yes, appellant‘s counsel carelessly took for granted that the date of

receipt stamped on the letter. He violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall

render him liable.‖

RATIO: According to Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility: ―A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,

and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.‖

The lower court did not find excusable the negligence in the

circumstances of the case. Appellant's counsel carelessly took for granted

that the date of receipt stamped on the letter by the legal department's

receiving clerk was the date of receipt from the post office. It was known

or at least should have been known to him that letters addressed to

appellant's legal department were taken from the post office by Eugenio

Magpoc and sorted out by Feliciano Jimenez, Jr. Thus, from appellant's

system of handling and receiving correspondence for its legal and all

other departments, it was clear that the date of receipt by the receiving

clerks of its several departments could not be relied upon as the very

same date of receipt from the post office. Counsel for appellant could

have easily found out the latter date had he inquired from Eugenio

Magpoc or Feliciano Jimenez, Jr. and in the circumstances, we find no

excuse for his having failed to do so.

The Court cited, Bello vs. Fernando, ―Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of

Court requires that the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the

record on appeal be all filed in court, and served on the adverse party,

within thirty days from notice of judgment. ...; and compliance with this

period for appeal is considered absolutely indispensable for the

prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of

judicial business, so that if said period is not complied with, the judgment

becomes final and executory.‖

Such circumstances do not exist in this case. We may also add that

appellant, while invoking the interest of justice, has not shown how it

would stand to be prejudiced from the loss of its right to appeal. From the

record no such prejudice can be gathered, especially because the

judgment provided for reimbursement in appellant's favor by third-party

defendant Jacobo Lampa and the latter has not appealed therefrom.

CASE 136: Agravante v. Patriarca

FACTS: A case was set for pre-trial but before it was held, a fire broke out

on June 26, 1976 in the capitol building. The records of the court were

burned, including the present case. The record was reconstituted and was

rescheduled for pre-trial on January 25, 1978. The defendant‘s counsel

move for the cancellation of this setting. The Court reset the pre-trial to

February 27, 1978. But again, the defendant‘s counsel pleading illness,

sought this be cancelled and rescheduled again. This motion was dated

February 14, 1978 but was only filed on February 22, 1978. This motion

contained no notice of hearing, but a photocopy of a medical certificate

dated January 30, 1978 stating that Atty. Pacamarra has headache and is

advised to take a rest. The motion filed was denied for being not in

accordance with the rules because of lack of notice to the adverse party,

lack of setting of the date of hearing, and the attached medical

certificate was only a photocopy. At the scheduled pre-trial on February

27, neither the counsel nor the defendants appeared. The Court declared

them in default. On March 4, the Court was informed of Juana Patriarca‘s

death and her heirs requested that she be substituted which was granted.

The heirs of Juana moved for reconsideration of the three orders dated

February 22, February 27, and March 4. But this was denied by the court.

Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari to the SC contending that they

had been denied their day in court.

ISSUE/S: W/N Atty. Pacamarra violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility?

HELD: Yes. He neglected his duties to legal matters. His petition for the

rescheduling of the pre-trial set on Feb 27, 1978 is untenable. A party or

counsel desiring a postponement of a pre-trial must comply with the

requisites set out in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. It shall be made in writing.

It shall state the grounds upon which it is based, and if necessary, be

accompanied by supporting affidavits or papers. It shall specify the date

of hearing. It shall be served by the applicant on all parties concerned 3

days before the said hearing. These requisites were not complied with by

the defendants. The SC also noted that the character of illness of Atty.

Pacamarra is not so severe as to render his non-attendance excusable.

The notice of the denial of his motion for postponement was served to him

in Feb 24, 3 days before the pre-trial date. The SC also held that

defendant‘s contention that the demise of Juana Patriarca prevented

the trial court‘s acquisition of jurisdiction over her is untenable. The death

of Juana does not affect the Court‘s jurisdiction. She was substituted. The

defendant‘s actuations give rise to the conclusion that they were

motivated by a desire to delay the disposition of the case. Petition for

certiorari dismissed.

CASE 137: Tomas Alcoriza vs. Atty. Alberto Lumakang, A.M. No. 249,

November 21, 1978

FACTS: An administrative complaint for disciplinary action was filed

against Respondents Attys. Pablo Salazar and Alberto Lumakang. This

case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General, for investigation,

report and recommendation. Since the respondents were residents of

Davao, the case was referred to the City Attorney of Davao City. The

latter submitted that the whole case emanated from the decision of the

MTC for sum of money, between Juana V. Antonio vs. Tomas Alcoriza. The

trial was conducted in the absence of the defendant and or his counsels

despite the fact that they have been duly notified.

Atty. Lumakang explains his failure to appear in the trial:

―Early in the morning as usual as I used to, I reported to the office at 7:30

believing that Tomas Alcoriza would come to the office. I waited for him

until 9:00. I know that the hearing of Judge Hofileña will be 9:00 and that

as I said if he will not appear in my office I will not appear for him as I

would be going there without any preparation, so that on that day

though I was jittery I did not go to the court. I stayed in the office waiting

for Alcoriza.‖

Atty. Lumakang contended that when he asked Alcoriza why he did not

go to the office or to the Court to attend to the trial of his case, Alcoriza

merely answered that he is busy. He then told Alcoriza that the Judge has

become impatient because of the many postponements, that an order

was issued giving him last postponement and that if he will be absent

again on the day of the trial, the Court will proceed to try the case ex

parte. Alcoriza assured that he will go and Atty. Lumakang told him that if

he will not come to the office on the date of the trial, Atty. Lumakang will

not appear in Court as his appearance would only be useless.

Atty. Lumakang suspected that Alcoriza had already lost his interest in the

case. This suspicion came true because on the date set for hearing of his

case as Alcoriza did not appear at the office of the respondent neither to

the Court. Such being the case, it is the honest belief of Atty. Lumakang

that a lawyer cannot be more interested in his client's case than the client

himself.

ISSUE/S: WON Respondent Atty. Lumakang‘s failure to appear in the trial

constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. The Court finds the report and recommendation of the Solicitor

General to be in order and amply justified by the circumstances on

record.

RATIO: Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him liable.

The Solicitor General reported and recommended that the reason of Atty.

Lumakang for his failure to appear in representation of his client, Tomas

Alcoriza, in the trial of his is not wholly laudable. The undersigned believes

that although Atty. Lumakang was not prepared to enter into trial on that

day, still he could do things to protect the interest of his client by

appearing for him in court. However, it is not considered that this inaction

of Atty. Lumakang would constitute so serious a ground as to warrant

disciplinary action in view of the lack of interest which his client has shown

in the premises. Instead, Atty. Lumakang should be reprimanded for his

inaction as it would tend to diminish trust and confidence which the

public is supposed to repose in the office of a lawyer. In order to be free

from any complaint from his client, he should have appeared primarily to

protect the interest of his client and secondarily, to explain to the court

the predicament he was in.

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is dismissed insofar as Atty.

Pablo Salazar is concerned, and Atty. Alberto Lumakang is hereby

reprimanded and admonished to be more careful in attending to the

cases of his clients so as to avoid any similar incident as that complained

of

CASE 138: Emilio Capulong, et. al. vs. Manuel G. Alino, A.M. No. 381,

February 10, 1968

FACTS: Respondent Manuel G. Aliño a member of the bar, is charged by

his former clients, the spouses Emilio and Cirila Capulong, with alleged

"gross negligence tantamount to malpractice and betrayal of his clients'

trust and confidence."

On August 21, 1957, respondent received from the complainants, as their

counsel in Civil Case No. 2248 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija

— the decision in which, adverse to said complainants, had been

appealed by them to the Court of Appeals — the sum of P298.00, for the

specific purpose of applying the same to the payment of the "appellate"

docket fees (P24), appeal bond (P15), (printing of) the record on appeal

(P150) and appellants' brief (P100), and that said appeal was dismissed

because of respondent's failure to pay the docket fee and to deposit the

estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal.

Respondent alleged that complainants had authorized him to exercise his

judgment and discretion in determining whether or not he should

prosecute the appeal, and to regard said sum of P298.00 as

compensation for his services in connection with said case, should he

consider it advisable to desist from said appeal.

After due hearing, the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija — who, having

been deputized therefor by the Solicitor General, received the evidence

for both parties — considered respondent's uncorroborated testimony, in

support of his answer, unworthy of credence and found the charge

against him duly proven, and, accordingly, recommended disciplinary

action against respondent.

Concurring in this finding and recommendation, the Solicitor General filed

the corresponding complaint charging respondent with "deceit,

malpractice or gross misconduct in office as a lawyer," in that, owing to his

"negligence and gross bad faith in unduly and knowingly failing to remit to

the Court of Appeals the docket fee and the estimated cost of printing

the record on appeal," said Court dismissed the aforementioned appeal.

ISSUE/S: WON respondent is guilty of violation of Canon 18.03 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. Respondent Alino is guilty of such.

RATIO: A misappropriation of funds held by respondent in trust for his

clients and a breach of such trust, the foregoing acts and omissions

indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent herein and his

unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession.

Under Canon 18.03 which provides: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable.

The evidence on record fully confirms the finding of guilt made by the

Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija and the Solicitor General and their

conclusion to the effect that respondent's uncorroborated testimony is

unworthy of credence. Indeed, had complainants authorized him to

decide whether or not to prosecute their appeal or desist therefrom, and,

in the latter alternative, to keep the P298.00 in question as his fees,

respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him for said sum,

stating specifically that it would be used for docket fees, the record on

appeal, the appeal bond and the (printing) of their brief. Moreover, if his

failure to pay said docket fees and to deposit the estimated cost of

printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision — pursuant to the

aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given — to desist from

prosecuting the appeal and to apply the money to the payment of his

professional fees, why is it that he filed a motion for reconsideration of the

resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in consequence

of said failure, thereby securing, in effect, an extension of over five (5)

months, to make said payment and deposit, which, eventually, he did not

make?

Respondent Manuel G. Aliño is, accordingly, disbarred. His name is

ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and his certificate of

Membership of the Philippine Bar, which he is directed to surrender to the

Clerk of Court, within ten (10) days after this judgment has become final,

hereby revoked. It is so ordered

CASE 139: Escudero, et al., v. Judge Dulay CPR 18.03

FACTS: On 18 July 1979, petitioner Araceli D. Escudero, wife of petitioner

Paterno D. Escudero, executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale under Pacto de

Retro" in favor of private respondents, the Amistad spouses, over a parcel

of residential land in Lapu-Lapu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 9223 of the Register of Deeds of that city. The consideration stated in

the document was P42,350.00. Redemption was to be made by the

vendors within three (3) months after the execution of the Deed of Sale, at

the same price of P42,350.00.

On 28 October 1979, or ten (10) days after the expiration of the

redemption period, private respondent spouses filed a petition for

consolidation of title over the parcel of land in question. This was opposed

by petitioner wife in an Answer, duly verified by her, where she alleged as

an affirmative and special defense that the transaction between her and

private respondents was actually one of loan of P 35,000.00, as principal,

with 7% monthly interest, thus totalling P 42,350.00, with the land

mortgaged as collateral or security. That the transaction was an equitable

mortgage can be gleaned, according to her, from the gross inadequacy

of the purchase price and the fact that she, the alleged vendor,

remained in possession of the land and continued to enjoy the fruits

thereof.

On 16 November 1979, or nearly a month after the expiration of the

redemption period, and upon advice of petitioners' then counsel, Atty.

Emmanuel Seno, petitioner wife deposited P42,350.00 in the form of a

bank manager's check, as redemption money, with the Clerk of Court of

respondent trial court. Atty. Seno then manifested at the pre-trial

conference held on 10 March 1980 that he was moving for a judgment on

the pleadings after agreeing to the characterization of the transaction

between the parties as a sale with pacto de retro, because under Article

1606 of the New Civil Code, the vendors (petitioners) may still exercise

their right of repurchase within thirty (30) days from the time final judgment

is rendered in a civil action, if the contract is a true sale with right to

repurchase.

ISSUE/S: WON violated Canon 18.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

HELD: Yes. The respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

RATIO: While this Court is cognizant of the rule that, generally, a client will

suffer the consequences of the negligence, mistake or lack of

competence of his counsel, in the interest of justice and equity,

exceptions may be made to such rule, in accordance with the facts and

circumstances of each case. Adherence to the general rule would, in the

instant case, result in the outright deprivation of their property through a

technicality. The Court cannot close its eyes to the petitioner wife's

affirmative and special defense, under oath in her Answer before the

respondent trial court that her transaction with private respondents was

not a pacto de retro sale but an equitable mortgage. The Court cannot

also but take note of petitioners' evidence to support such verified

defense, notably the incriminating note signed by the agent of both

parties in which the real nature of the questioned transaction is revealed

CASE 96: Antonio Blanza, et al. vs. Atty. Agustin Arcangel

FACTS: Blanza and Pasion complain that way back in April, 1955,

respondent Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension

claims in connection with the deaths of their husbands, both P.C. soldiers,

and for this purpose, they handed over to him the pertinent documents

and also attached their signatures on blank papers. However, they

noticed that since then, Arcangel had lost interest in the progress of their

claims and when they finally asked for the return of their papers six years

later, Arcangel refused to surrender them.

Arcangel admitted having received the documents from complainants

but argued that it was for photostating purposes only. His failure to

immediately return them was due to complainants Blanza and Pasion's

refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photostating costs which

prevented him from withdrawing said documents from the photostat

service. Nonetheless, he had already advanced the expenses himself and

turned over, on December 13, 1961, the documents, their respective

photostats and the photostat service receipt to the fiscal.

ISSUE/S: WON Arcangel violated Rule 18.04 wherein a lawyer must inform

the client on status of case

HELD: The court is compelled to dismiss the charges against respondent

Arcangel for being legally insufficient because of the affidavit of Mrs.

Blanza pardoning respondent and because of the non appearance of

Complainant Pasion nor her counsel to substantiate her charges in the

hearing set

RATIO: The courtcannot but advise against his actuations as a member of

the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community

than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a

man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a

model citizen. His conduct must be par excellence, especially when

he volunteers his professional services. Arcangel has not lived up to that

ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants Blanza and

Pasion wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon

their refusal to co-operate, respondent Arcangel should have terminated

their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging

indefinitely. And although the court decided he not be reprimanded, in a

legal sense, this should serve as a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the

high standards of his chosen profession require of him