Legal Ethics Case Digest Compiled-libre

8/9/2019 Legal Ethics Case Digest Compiled-libre

1/98

LEGAL ETHICS 2ndSem 2005-2006

1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO

FACTS: Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter he !as appointed as "lection #e$istrar of Cadi% &e$ros

'ccidental () C'*"L"C Ledesma !ithdre! as counsel on the (asis that his appointment as "lection #e$istrar !ould re+uire full time

ser,ice as !ell as on the ,olume or pressure of !or !ill pre,ent him from handlin$ ade+uatel) the defense. ud$e Climaco denied his motion and e,en appointed him as counsel de officio of the accused.

/SS": 1o& the !ithdra!al of Ledesma should (e allo!ed

"L3: &o.

#AT/':4. There is o(,ious reluctance of Ledesma to compl) !ith his responsi(ilities as counsel de oficio. Then e,en

assumin$ that he continues his position his ,olume of !or is liel) to (e ,er) much less than present. There isno ecuse for him to shir from his o(li$ation as mem(er of the (ar !ho epects to remain in $ood standin$should fulfill.

2. Ledesma !as not mindful of his o(li$ation as counsel de oficio. e ou$ht to no! that mem(ership in the (ar is apri,ile$e (urdened !ith conditions. ein$ appointed as counsel de oficio re+uires a hi$h de$ree of fidelit) 7la! is aprofession and not a mere trade8. #e+uires counsel of repute and eminence.

9. /n criminal cases ri$ht to counsel is a(solute. &o fair hearin$ unless the accused (e $i,en an opportunit) to (eheard () counsel.

. The denial () ud$e Climaco !as due to the principal effect to dela) the case 7case has alread) (een postponed

for ; times8

2 IN RE SYCIP

FACTS: This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed () the sur,i,in$ partners of att). Aleander S)cip and the other

filed () the sur,i,in$ partners of Att). erminio ',aepa. The) pra) that the) (e allo!ed to continue usin$ thenames of partners !ho had passed a!a).


2/98


#enato Ca)etano no! assails the appointment. e sa)s that *onsod is not +ualified to the position (ecause hehas not (een en$a$ed in the practice of la! for ten )earsB 7re+uirement is pro,ided () Consti Art. -C Sec. 47488.

/ssue: 1=n *onsod is +ualified for the position of C'*"L"C chairman.

eld: SC sa)s )es. *onsod passed the (ar in 460 and had (een consistentl) pa)in$ his professional fees. e !ored

in a la! firm for se,eral )ears after $raduatin$ (ut after that had (een more en$a$ed in (usiness and politics 7fora list of his Do(s see p.29;8. Still the SC said that he can still (e considered as practicin$ la! if !e consider themodern concept of the practice of la!. This modern concept pertains to an) act !hether in or out of court !hichre+uires the application of la! le$al procedure no!led$e trainin$ and eperience.

SC no! sa)s that since most of *onsod?s Do(s in,ol,ed the la! e,en if he has not (een en$a$ed in traditionalla!)erin$ 7i.e. main$ pleadin$s or appearin$ in court8 he can still (e considered as to ha,e (een en$a$ed in thepractice of la!.

3issents: *ost of the dissents focused on the issue that the Consti re+uirement pertains to ha(itual practice of la!. The

dissenters pointed out that for the past ten )ears *onsod reall) seldom practiced la!. This $roup (elie,ed thatthe Consti re+uired that the practice of la! (e on a re$ular (asis. ustice


3/98


&*FC also !rote the SC re+uestin$ it to stop said deductions Learnin$ of the letters ALA1/ filed a complaint alle$in$ that ALAIA

o Committed malicious and li(elous char$eso surped the title of attorne)

/SS" 1=& ALAIA H/'LAT"3 T" C'3" 'F C'&3CT A&3 "T/CAL STA&3A#3S F'#


4/98


!ithout fallin$ (elo! 50 per cent in an) su(Dect (e admitted in mass to the practice of la! the disputed la! is not ale$islation it is a Dud$ment a Dud$ment re,oin$ those promul$ated () this Court durin$ the )ears affectin$ the (arcandidates concerned

Althou$h the SC certainl) can re,oe these Dud$ments e,en no! for Dustifia(le reasons it is no less certain that onl) theSC and not the le$islati,e nor eecuti,e department that ma) (e so. An) attempt on the part of an) of these departments!ould (e a clear usurpation of its functions as in this case.

Con$ress ma) repeal alter and supplement the rules promul$ated () this court (ut the authorit) and responsi(ilit) o,erthe admission suspension dis(arment and reinstatement of attorne)s-at-la! and their super,ision remain ,ested in theSupreme Court.

Section 49 article H/// of the Constitution pro,ides:Section !"# T$e S%pre&e Co%rt s$all $ave t$e po'er to pro&%l(ate r%les concernin( pleadin(, practice, andproced%re in all co%rts, and t$e ad&ission to t$e practice o) la'# Said r%les s$all *e %ni)or& )or all co%rts o) t$esa&e (rade and s$all not di&inis$ increase or &odi)+ s%*stantive ri($ts# T$e eistin( la's on pleadin(, practice,and proced%re are $ere*+ repealed as stat%tes, and are declared R%les o) Co%rts, s%*-ect to t$e po'er o) t$eS%pre&e Co%rt to alter and &odi)+ t$e sa&e# T$e Con(ress s$all $ave t$e po'er to repeal, alter, or s%pple&entt$e r%les concernin( pleadin(, practice, and proced%re, and t$e ad&ission to t$e practice o) la' in t$e.$ilippines#

The Constitution has not conferred on Con$ress and the SC e+ual responsi(ilities concernin$ the admission to the practiceof la!. The primar) po!er and responsi(ilit) !hich the Constitution reco$ni%es continue to reside in the SC.

ad Con$ress found that this Court has not promul$ated an) rule on the matter it !ould ha,e nothin$ o,er !hich toeercise the po!er $ranted to it.

The Constitution does not sa) nor mean that Con$ress ma) admit suspend dis(ar or reinstate directl) attorne)s at la! ora determinate $roup of indi,iduals to the practice of la!. /ts po!er is limited to repeal modif) or supplement the eistin$rules on the matter if accordin$ to its Dud$ment the need for a (etter ser,ice of the le$al profession re+uires it. ut thispo!er does not relie,e this Court of its responsi(ilit) to admit suspend dis(ar and reinstate attorne)s at la! andsuper,ise the practice of the le$al profession.

There is no moti,e stated () the authorities for the +ualification in #A J2 (ecause of this the classification is fatall)defecti,e.

4. That 7a8 the portion of article 4 of #epu(lic Act &o. J2 referrin$ to the eaminations of 46 to 452 and 7(8 allof article 2 of said la! are unconstitutional and therefore ,oid and !ithout force and effect.2. That for lac of unanimit) in the ei$ht ustices that part of article 4 !hich refers to the eaminations su(se+uentto the appro,al of the la! that is from 459 to 455 inclusi,e is ,alid and shall continue to (e in force in conformit) !ithsection 40 article H// of the Constitution.Conse+uentl) 748 all the a(o,e-mentioned petitions of the candidates !ho failed in the eaminations of 46 to 452inclusi,e are denied and 728 all candidates !ho in the eaminations of 459 o(tained a $eneral a,era$e of J4.5 per centor more !ithout ha,in$ a $rade (elo! 50 per cent in an) su(Dect are considered as ha,in$ passed !hether the) ha,efiled petitions for admission or not. After this decision has (ecome final the) shall (e permitted to tae and su(scri(e thecorrespondin$ oath of office as mem(ers of the ar on the date or dates that the Chief ustice ma) set.

7 ECHEGARAY V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

pp. 444-442

The 4J9 ConstitutionArticle M Sec5 758:

The Supreme Court shall ha,e the follo!in$ po!ers:

758


5/98


The 4;J molded an e,en stron$er and more independent Dudiciar). /t epanded the rule-main$ po!er of the SupremeCourt. For the first time the court !as $i,en the po!er to promul$ate rules concernin$ the protection and enforcement ofconstitutional ri$hts. /t also $ranted for the first time the po!er to disappro,e rules of procedure of special courts and+uasi-Dudicial (odies. .+( m)*( m$)#(a,(%' (-" 17 C),*((+(), ()) aa (-" $)"# ) C),/#"** () #"$"a%'a%("#' )# *+$$%"m",( #+%"* ),"#,,/ $%"a&,/' $#a("' a,& $#)"&+#"0

IN RE GUTIERRE8

/n re @utierre%

Facts: @utierre% is a mem(er of the


6/98


Althou$h '(lena is not )et con,icted of the crime of rape seduction or adulter) and he is not $uilt) of an) of the$rounds for dis(arment enumerated in Sec 25 #ule 42J of the #ules of Court the enumeration is not eclusi,eand the po!er of the court to eclude un!orth) mem(ers of the (ar is inherent and is a necessar) incident to theproper administration of Dustice and can (e eercised e,en !ithout an) statutor) authorit) in all cases unlessproperl) prohi(ited () statutes.

American Durisprudence pro,ides that the continued possession of a $ood moral character is a re+uisite conditionfor the ri$htful continuance in the practice of la!. The loss re+uires suspension or dis(arment e,enthou$h thestatues do not eplicitl) specif) that as a $round of dis(arment.

'(lena?s ar$ument that he (elie,ed himself to (e a person !ith $ood moral character !hen he filed hisapplication to tae the (ar eamination is !ron$. 'ne?s o!n approimation of himself is not a $au$e of his moralcharacter. *oral character is not a su(Decti,e term (ut one !hich corresponds to o(Decti,e realit). *oralcharacter is !hat the person reall) is and not !hat he other people thins he is.

is pretension to !ait for the 4;th(irthda) of #o)on$ (efore ha,in$ carnal no!led$e !ith her sho!s theschemin$ mind of '(lena and his tain$ ad,anta$e of his no!led$e of the la!.

Also #o)on$ is the niece of his common-la! !ife and he enDo)ed moral ascendanc) o,er her. '(lena tooad,anta$e of #o)on$?s trust on him.

'(lena?s contention that the Solicitor @eneral eceeded his authorit) in filin$ the present complain !hich isentirel) different from the ori$inal complaint filed is untena(le. There is nothin$ in the la! re+uirin$ the Solicitor@eneral to char$e in his complaint the same offence char$ed in the ori$inal complaint. 1hat the la! pro,ides isthat if the Solicitor @eneral finds sufficient $rounds to proceed a$ainst the respondent he shall file thecorrespondin$ complaint accompanied () the e,idence introduced in his in,esti$ation.

1: CORDON 9 .ALICANTA

7complaint for dis(arment a$ainst alicanta8

Facts: Cordon and her dau$hter inherited 24 parcels of land in Nam(oan$a Cit) !hen Cordon?s hus(and died. Sometime after alicanta enticed Cordon to or$ani%e a corporation to de,elop the properties. 4 parcels of land

!as transferred in the name of the ne!l) formed corporation. alicanta (ecame the Chairman of the oard


7/98


Torres contends that his acts !ere done in $ood faith (elie,in$ for himself that his and the si(lin$s hadalread) a$reed on ho! to dispose of the said lot. That the false testimon) !as a clear o,ersi$ht. And that hisconformit) throu$h his si$nature !as pro forma (ecause the propert) !as a paraphernal propert) of *arcelinaand his !ife. /n,esti$atin$ Commissioner of /< su$$ested dis(arment

/SS": 1o& Torres should (e dis(arredG

"L3: I"S

#AT/':4. The la!)er?s oath to !hich all la!)ers ha,e su(scri(ed in solemn a$reement to dedicate themsel,es to the

pursuit of Dustice is not a mere ceremon) or formalit) for practicin$ la! to (e for$otten after!ards nor is it mere!ords drift and hollo! (ut a sacred trust that la!)ers must uphold and eep in,iola(le at all times.

2. A la!)er is the ser,ant of the la! and (elon$s to a profession to !hich societ) has entrusted the administration ofla! and the dispensation of Dustice he should mae himself more an eemplar for others to emulate and heshould mae himself more an eemplar for others to emulate and he should not en$a$e in unla!ful dishonestimmoral or deceitful conduct.

9. The supreme penalt) of dis(arment is meted out onl) in clear cases of misconduct that seriousl) affect thestandin$ and character of the la!)er as an officer of the court and mem(er of the (ar.

12 MACARRU.O 9 MACARRU.O

Facts:Florence *acarru(o () herself and on (ehalf of her 2 children files a complaint for dis(arment a$ainst "dmundo *acarru(oalle$in$ that "dmundo decei,ed herinto marr)in$ him despite his prior su(sistin$ marria$e !ith a certain elen "spar%a.

Florence further a,erred that "dmundo entered into a 9rd marria$e !ith osephine Constantino and that he a(andonedFlorence !ithout pro,idin$ them != re$ularsupport.

"dmundo denied the alle$ations insistin$ instead that complainant Florence !as full) a!are of his prior su(sistin$marria$e (ut that Florence dra$$ed "dmundo a$ainst his !ill to a Osham !eddin$O.

"dmundo su(mitted the decision of #TC declarin$ his marria$e to complainant ,oid a( initio. "dmundo claimed that heleft complainant and their 2 children != her consent.

/ssue:1=n "dmundo should (e dis(arred...

eld:Ies.Facts sho! that !hile "dmundo has a su(sistin$ marria$e != elen "spar%a s= !hom he had 2 children he entered into a2nd marria$e !ith complainant. 1hile themarria$e (et!een complainant Florence and "dmundo has (een annulled () final Dud$ment this does not cleanse hisconduct of impropriet).

",en assumin$ ar$uendo that "dmunod !as coerced () complainant to marr) her the duress has ceased after !eddin$da). "dmundo ha,in$ freel) coha(ited !ith herand e,en (e$ot a 2nd child.

The decision of #TC annullin$ their marria$e is not res Dudicata on the final resolution of this case. A dis(arment case is sui$eneris for it is neither purel) ci,il nor criminal (ut is rather an in,esti$ation () the court on the conduct of its officers.

13 SICAT 9 ARIOLA

Facts: Arturo Sicat oard *em(er of the San$$unian$


8/98


therefore he should (e eonerated E the document !as cancelled the same da) he notari%ed it hence le$all)there !as no pu(lic document that eisted.

/ssue: 1=& Ariola can (e held lia(le.

eld: Ies. &otaries pu(lic should not authenticate documents unless the persons !ho si$ned them are the ,er) same

persons !ho eecuted them an personall) appeared (efore the to attest to the contents and truth of !hat arestated therein.

is assertion of falsehood in a pu(lic document contra,ened one of the most cherished tenets of the le$alprofession and potentiall) cast suspicion on the truthfulness of e,er) notarial act.

Ariola is dis(arred and not merel) suspended for a )ear.

14 CHUA 9 MESINA' J#

Facts: Att) Simeon *esina is the le$al counsel of spouses Anna Chua and Chua An. The spouses leased a (uildin$ o!ned

() *esina?s famil). The propert) ho!e,er !as actuall) mort$a$ed in fa,or of a (an for a loan o(tained ()*esina?s motherFelicisima *elencio 7!ho !as the re$istered o!ner as !ell8.

1hen Felicisima failed to meet her o(li$ations to the (an the spouses !ere con,inced () *esina to help hismother in consideration for the purchase of the same lot at a certain price. A deed of sale !as made con,e)in$the propert) to the spouses.

ut !hen the spouses !ere appraised for capital $ains ta Att) *esina su$$ested to eecute another deed ofsalethis time the date of the transaction is 4J !hich is (efore the effecti,it) of the la! imposin$ capital$ains ta.

&ot lon$ after the title !as handed o,er to the spouses another lessee of the (uildin$Tecson+uestioned thetransaction as he !as himself interested in (u)in$ the propert). Tecson filed char$es for falsification ofdocuments.

To a,oid the falsification char$e *esina proposed to simulate a deed of sale !herein the spouses !ould appearto resell the propert) to Felicisima. A ne! title !as issued to Felicisima () ,irtue of said deed (ut this !asentrusted in the hands of the spouses.

Later on Tecson desisted from pursuin$ the char$es. *ean!hile *esina (orro!ed the title of the propert) fromthe spouses and promised to transfer )et a$ain title in the name of the spouses.

ut *esina failed to effect such transfer and the spouses learned that the propert) is (ein$ offered to a pu(licsale. ence the action. The case !as in,esti$ated () the /< and recommended that *esina (e suspended for$ross misconduct.

/ssue:1as Att). *esina $uilt) of $ross misconductG

eld:lime)> 'f course> 1hen Att) *esina ad,ised Chua to eecute a deed of sale antedated to 4J to e,ade pa)ment ofcapital $ains ta he ,iolated his dut) to promote respect for la! and le$al processes. 1hen he con,inced Chua to eecuteanother deed to mae it appear that the propert) !as con,e)ed (ac to Felicisima *esina committed dishonest). And!hen he o(tained the title upon the misrepresentation that he !ill return the same after months he committeddishonest) a$ain. There !ere also (ad$es of fraud that can (e attri(uted to *esina as there !ere mared differences inthe si$natures of Felicisima.

Clearl) *esina ,iolated his oath of office and Canons 4 J 45 and 4J of the Code of


9/98


ISSUE W


10/98


as a practicin$ la!)er.B

/ssue: 1=& Att). is lia(le to (e sanctioned.

eld: Att). 'rti% is to (e sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of la! for one 748 month.

Se,eral of the canons and rules in the Code of


11/98


prohi(ited per se and that it is a(out time to chan$e our ,ie!s a(out the prohi(ition on ad,ertisin$ andsolicitation. e also said that the interest of the pu(lic is not ser,ed () the prohi(ition and su$$ested that the(an (e lifted.

/< recommended that Sim(illo (e suspended for 4 )ear and that repetition of similar act !ill (e dealt !ith morese,erel).

1hile the case !as (ein$ in,esti$ated upon () the court Sim(illo a$ain ad,ertised his le$al ser,ices for 2 timesin the u) R Sell Free Ads *a$a%ine.

/SS": 1=& Sim(illo ,iolated the Code of #ule 2.09 pro,ides a la!)er shall not do or permit to (e done an) act desi$ned primaril) to solicit le$al (usiness

!hile #ule 9.04 states that a la!)er shall not use or permit the use of an) false fraudulent misleadin$decepti,e undi$nified self-laudator) or unfair statement or claim re$ardin$ his +ualifications or le$al ser,ices.

/t has (een repeatedl) stressed that the practice of la! is not a (usiness. /t is a profession in !hich the dut) topu(lic ser,ice not mone) is the primar) consideration. The $ainin$ of li,elihood should (e a secondar)consideration.

Aside from ad,ertisin$ himself as an Annulment of *arria$e SpecialistB his assurance of his clients that anannulment ma) (e o(tained in -6 months from the filin$ of the case encoura$es people !ho mi$ht other ha,e2ndthou$ht to dissol,e their marria$e.

Solicitation of le$al (usiness is not proscri(ed. o!e,er solicitation must (e compati(le !ith the di$nit) of thele$al profession. The use of simple si$ns statin$ the name=s of the la!)ers the office and residence address and

the fields of epertise as !ell as ad,ertisement in le$al periodicals (earin$ the same (rief data are permissi(le. The use of callin$ cards is no! accepta(le.

2: IN RE TAGORDA

Facts: Luis Ta$orda is a mem(er of the pro,incial (oard of /sa(ela o / ne,er had an) case () reason of the pu(lication

Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, GanaLopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas 2C


12/98


/SS": 1o& a)ot can (e char$ed !ith malpracticeG

"L3: I"S.

4. The pu(lication is tantamount to a solicitation of (usiness from the pu(lic. Section 25 of #ule 42J epressl)pro,ides amon$ other thin$s that the practice of solicitin$ cases at la! for the purpose of $ain either personall)or thru paid a$ents or (roers constitutes malpractice. /t is hi$hl) unethical for an attorne) to ad,ertise histalents or sill as a merchant ad,ertises his !ares. La! is a profession and not a trade.

2. /n In re Ta(orda 59


13/98


1hen SA/?s petition o,er the land !as denied the SA/?s oard terminated #omanillos? ser,ices.

Also #omanillos acted as counsel for L)dia 3urano-#odri$ue% !ho su(stituted for 3C/.

Thus a dis(arment case !as filed for conflictin$ interests.

The /< handled the case (ut he !as merel) reprimanded.

/n spite of this he still continued to ser,e as counsel for 3urano-#odri$ue%. Thus a second dis(arment case !asfiled. /t also included his use of Dud$eB althou$h he !as found $uilt) of $ra,e and serious misconduct.

I**+"? 1=& #omanillos should (e dis(arred

H"%&?

Ies.

/t is inconse+uential that SA/ ne,er +uestioned the propriet) of respondent?s continued representation of3urano-#odri$ue%. The lac of opposition does not mean consent. As lon$ as the la!)er represents 2 or moreopposin$ clients he is $uilt) of ,iolatin$ his oath.

is continued use of Dud$eB ,iolated #ules 4.04 and 9.04. The penalt) imposed on him in the Narate caseforfeiture of all lea,e and retirement (enefits and pri,ile$es: includin$ the title Dud$e. 7he !as a Dud$e (efore(ut he resi$ned instead of (ein$ (ooted out8

The title Dud$eB should (e reser,ed onl) to Dud$es incum(ent and retired an not to those !ho !eredishonora(l) dischar$ed from the ser,ice.

24 DIMATULAC 9 VILLON

Facts: /n the prosecution of the Ia(uts for the murder of 3imatulac the 'ffice of the


14/98


The Dud$e should al!a)s (e im(ued !ith a hi$h sense of dut) and responsi(ilit) in the dischar$e of his o(li$ation topromptl) and properl) administer DusticeB. The Dud$e?s action must not impair the su(stantial ri$hts of the accused nor theri$ht of the State and offended part).

1hen the State is depri,ed of due process in a criminal case () reason of $ra,e a(use of discretion on the part of the trialcourt the ac+uittal of the accused or dismissal of the case is ,oid.

25 TRIESTE 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN

FACTS T#/"ST" !as char$ed !ith 29 separate ,iolations of the Anti @raft and Corrupt


15/98


'ct. 25 4;2 E all affida,its and counter-affida,its !ere in and the case !as read) for disposition.

ul) 5 4;5 E Tanod(a)an issued a resolution callin$ for the filin$ of char$es a$ainst Tatad in the Sandi$an(a)an.5 informations !ere filed a$ainst Tatad in 4;5.

Tatad no! +uestions the propriet) of the filin$ of char$es. e alle$es that his ri$hts to due process and speed)disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.

/ssue:

1=n Tatad?s ri$hts to due process and speed) disposition of cases ha,e (een ,iolated.

eld:

SC sa)s )es the) !ere ,iolated () the lon$ dela) in the termination of the preliminar) in,esti$ation () theTanod(a)an. Su(stantial adherence to the re+uirements of the la! and su(stantial compliance !ith the timelimitation prescri(ed () la! is part of procedural due process.

The case !as read) for disposition as earl) as 4;2 (ut the informations !ere onl) filed in 4;5. A dela) of closeto 9 )ears can not (e deemed reasona(le or Dustifia(le in the li$ht of the circumstance o(tainin$ in the case at(ar. The char$es in the complaint speciall) his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Lia(ilities are not thatcomplicated to re+uire 9 )ears (efore formal complaints are filed.

27 PN. 9 ATTY CEDO

Facts:


16/98


as an errin$ Court personnel under the super,isor) authorit) of the court. erein Cioco is sou$ht to (edisciplined as a la!)er under the court?s plenar) authorit) o,er mem(ers of the le$al profession.

1hile Cioco is in effect (ein$ indicted t!ice for the same misconduct there is no dou(le Deopard) as (othproceedin$s are administrati,e in nature.

The $eneral rule is that a la!)er !ho holds a $o,ernment office ma) not (e disciplined as a mem(er of the (ar formisconduct in the dischar$e of his duties as a $o,ernment official. The eception is if that misconduct affectshis +ualification as a la!)er or sho!s moral delin+uenc).

Cioco?s participation in chan$in$ the (id price in the Certificate of Sheriff?s Sale affects his fitness as a mem(er ofthe (ar. e no!s it is patentl) ille$al to alter its contents after notari%ation since it is alread) a pu(licdocument.

Cioco is dis(arred.

2 IGOY 9 SORIANO

FACTS: /$o) is one of the petitioners in the case of eirs of @a,ino /$o) et al. ,s. *actan Shan$rila otel. "n$. 1illiam #edo(lado introduced Att). Soriano to /$o) as a ustice of the CA. Accordin$ to /$o)?s friend Att). Soriano !ill (e a(le to help him in his case !hich is pendin$ in the CA Att). Soriano demanded from /$o)


17/98


4;J:


18/98


therefore un!orth) to (e a la!)er. 7he did not offer an) eplanation for such omission8.9. Amon$ other $rounds for dis(arment:

a. *isrepresentations of or false pretenses relati,e to the re+t on applicant?s educational attainment(. Lac of $ood moral characterc. Fraudulent passin$ of the ar eams

32 IN RE CUEVAS

Facts:


19/98


20/98


*oreo,er an) prudent la!)er !ould ,erif) the information contained in an attachment to her pleadin$ especiall)in this case since /#/S had personal no!led$e of facts stated therein

ence /#/S should (e reprimanded for attachin$ marria$e certificate !ith an altered date

36 ROYONG 9 O.LENA

FACTS: #o)on$ the niece it the common-la! !ife of '(lena filed a rape case a$ainst the latter. /n her complaint #o)on$ alle$ed that in 45; '(lena forced her to ha,e intercourse !ith her and that she

refrained to report the incident (ecause '(lena threatened to ill her famil). As a result if the seual intercourse #o)on$ $a,e (irth to a child '(lena denied all the alle$ations and ar$ued that he and #o)on$ had a relationship and #o)on$ consented to

ha,e intercourse !ith him. The Solicitor @eneral recommended that '(lena (e permanentl) remo,ed from the roll of attorne) e,enthou$h

the acts of the #o)on$ (efore and after the rape incident sho!ed that she is more of a s!eetheart than a ,ictim(ecause of the circumstances (ehind the incident

The Solicitor @eneral also char$ed '(lena of falsif)in$ and deli(eratel) alle$in$ in his application in the (arin45; that he is a person of $ood moral character !hile ha,in$ an illicit and adulterous relationship !ith An$eles!ho is not onl) the aunt of #o)on$ (ut also has a le$al hus(and in the pro,ince

'(lena mo,ed to dismiss the case (ecause the offenses char$ed are different from those ori$inall) char$ed inthe complaint (ut the court o,erruled his petition

After the hearin$ the in,esti$ators concluded that A.8 '(lena used his no!led$e in la! to commit immoral acts!ithout incurrin$ an) criminal lia(ilit) .8 he committed $ross immoralit) () continuousl) coha(itin$ !ith

An$eles his common-la! !ife e,en after he (ecame a la!)er and C.8 '(lena falsified the truth as to his $oodmoral character in his application to tae the (ar.

/SS": 1=& the illicit relationship !ith #o)on$ and the open coha(itation !ith An$eles a married !oman are sufficient

$rounds to cause '(lena?s dis(arment

"L3: I"S> Althou$h '(lena is not )et con,icted of the crime of rape seduction or adulter) and he is not $uilt) of an) of the

$rounds for dis(arment enumerated in Sec 25 #ule 42J of the #ules of Court the enumeration is not eclusi,eand the po!er of the court to eclude un!orth) mem(ers of the (ar is inherent and is a necessar) incident to theproper administration of Dustice and can (e eercised e,en !ithout an) statutor) authorit) in all cases unlessproperl) prohi(ited () statutes.

American Durisprudence pro,ides that the continued possession of a $ood moral character is a re+uisite conditionfor the ri$htful continuance in the practice of la!. The loss re+uires suspension or dis(arment e,enthou$h the

statues do not eplicitl) specif) that as a $round of dis(arment. '(lena?s ar$ument that he (elie,ed himself to (e a person !ith $ood moral character !hen he filed hisapplication to tae the (ar eamination is !ron$. 'ne?s o!n approimation of himself is not a $au$e of his moralcharacter. *oral character is not a su(Decti,e term (ut one !hich corresponds to o(Decti,e realit). *oralcharacter is !hat the person reall) is and not !hat he other people thins he is.

is pretension to !ait for the 4;th(irthda) of #o)on$ (efore ha,in$ carnal no!led$e !ith her sho!s theschemin$ mind of '(lena and his tain$ ad,anta$e of his no!led$e of the la!.

Also #o)on$ is the niece of his common-la! !ife and he enDo)ed moral ascendanc) o,er her. '(lena tooad,anta$e of #o)on$?s trust on him.

'(lena?s contention that the Solicitor @eneral eceeded his authorit) in filin$ the present complain !hich isentirel) different from the ori$inal complaint filed is untena(le. There is nothin$ in the la! re+uirin$ the Solicitor@eneral to char$e in his complaint the same offence char$ed in the ori$inal complaint. 1hat the la! pro,ides isthat if the Solicitor @eneral finds sufficient $rounds to proceed a$ainst the respondent he shall file thecorrespondin$ complaint accompanied () the e,idence introduced in his in,esti$ation.

37 DE LOS REYES 9 A8NAR

Facts: 3elos #e)es filed a complaint a$ainst Att). A%nar for $ross immoralit)./t appears that Att). A%nar raped 3elos #e)es. From the e,idence it appears that A%nar !as the

Chairman of the oard of South!estern ni,ersit).3elos #e)es failed her


21/98


eld: A%nar is $uilt) of $ross misconduct.The court a$rees !ith the Sol. @en.?s findin$ that A%nar committed $ross misconduct. 1hile A%nar denied

ha,in$ taen 3elos #e)es to the Am(assador otel and had seual intercourse !ith her he did not present an)e,idence to sho! !here he !as on that date. I( * (-" &+( ) (-" %a"#' -","9"# -* m)#a% -a#a("# *$+( ,() B+"*(),' () *a(* (-" )+#( (-a( -" * ( a,& $#)$"# () ",) ),(,+"& m"m!"#*-$ , (-"!a#0 H" a,,)( &*$",*" (- (-" -/- "a(,/ m)#a% *(a,&a#&* ) (-" $#)"**),0 G))& m)#a%-a#a("# * a ),(,+,/ B+a%a(), ,""**a# () ",((%" ), () ),(,+" , (-" $#a(" ) %a

3 SO.ERANO 9 VILLANUEVA

Facts: So(erano filed a petition for dis(arment alle$in$ that after Att). Hillanue,a had induced her to tae part in a fae

!eddin$ the latter coha(ited !ith her and later li,ed !ith her as hus(and and !ife. As a conse+uence of thisshe (ore him t!o children and su(se+uentl) Hillanue,a a(andoned them.

Soon thereafter So(erano sent a letter to the court asin$ that no action (e taen on her petition until hermother has arri,ed and decided !hether it should push thou$h.

So(erano sent another letter sa)in$ that her mother has arri,ed and that the case must case. So(erano a$ain !rote a letter sa)in$ that the filin$ of the petition !as not sincerel) her o!n !ish and that she

!as finall) !ithdra!in$ her complaint the last letter !ritten () So(erano to the court ho!e,er pra)ed that her motion to !ithdra! the petition (e

denied since Hillanue,a had procured the motion () means of threat and intimidation.

/ssue: 1=& Hillanue,a should (e dis(arred

eld: &' The letters of So(erano to Hillanue,a clearl) indicated that intimate relations had eisted (et!een them prior to

the date !hen the alle$ed fae !eddin$ occurred. These indicate that there !as o need for Hillanue,a to sta$e afae !eddin$ to induce So(erano to coha(it !ith him.

Some of the letters sho!ed that So(erano reminded him of his promise to marr) her after he passed the (ar As to !hether the etra-marital relations (et!een So(erano and Hillanue,a !arrants disciplinar) action SC held

that in li$ht of the circumstances in this case these acts are neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act norso unprincipled as to !arrant a dis(arment of disciplinar) action.

Also distin$uished mem(ers of the (ar had attested to Hillanue,a?s $ood moral character. 'ne is no less thanthe "ecuti,e ud$e of the CF/ of &e$ros 'ccidental !here Hillanue,a is practices his profession. The other is the3ean *ontema)or of the Ateneo Colle$e of La!. The last one is on. @uillermo Santos former Chairman ofA$ricultural Tenanc) Commission then ud$e of CF/ and Court of A$rarian #elations.

3 RAO SHENG 9 VELASCO

FACTS: #au Shen$ *ao is a Tai!anese national !ho en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). An$eles Helasco as his le$al consultant

and counsel of his compan) Forei$n /n,estors Consultanc) and *ana$ement /nc 7F/C*/8. aru @en each #esort and otel Corporation represented () Att) Helasco as its director and stocholder

entered into a mana$ement a$reement !ith F/C*/ Att) Helasco sold to #au Shen$ his 40000 shares in aru @en for


22/98


impression that he !as in the position to influence the court and he !as ordered suspended from the practice ofla! for 2 )ears

The court found it unliel) that #au Shen$ !as decei,ed () Att). Helasco in all their transactions for he !asal!a)s represented () Att).


23/98


2. An) !ron$doin$ !hich indicates moral unfitness for the profession !hether it (e professional or non-pro Dustifiesdisciplinar) action. For a la!)er?s professional and personal conduct must at all times (e ept (e)ond reproachand a(o,e suspicion.

er deli(erate refusal to accept the notices ser,ed on her stains the no(ilit) of the profession. o! else !ould a la!)erendea,or to ser,e Dustice and uphold the la! !hen she disdains to follo! e,en simple directi,es. Also Canon 4 sa)s that ala!)er shall uphold the consti o(e) the la!s of the land and promote respect for the le$al processes.

42 COJUANGCO 9 PALMA

Facts:Complainant CoDuan$co !a a client of An$ara Concepcion #e$ala and Cru% La! 'ffices and


24/98


Canon ; of the Code of


25/98


This failure of


26/98


Tenorio La! office !ith Felicisimo as senior partner 728 Sa$ip #adio Comm. @roup card of Att). FelicisimoTenorioB 798 an ordered () the *TCC !here Felicisimo entered his appearance as counsel.

An) la!)er !ho allo!s a non-mem(er of the ar to misrepresent himself as a la!)er is $uilt) of ,iolatin$rule .04. The la!)er?s dut) to pre,ent or not assist in the unauthori%ed practice of la! is founded on pu(licinterest and polic). The purpose is to protect the pu(lic the client the (ar and the court from the incompetenceand dishonest) of those unlicensed to practice.

4 TAN TE> .ENG 9 DAVID

Facts: Tan Te en$ is a non-la!)er !hile 3a,id is a la!)er. 3a,id drafted a contract si$ned () him and Tan Te en$

statin$ amon$ others that 'n all commissions and attorne)?s fees that !e shall recei,e from our clients !e shalldi,ide fift)-fift).B /n the same contract 3a,id also a$reed not to deal directl) !ith their clients.

The (usiness relationship (et!een 3a,id and Tan Te en$ did not last since there !ere mutual accusations ofdou(lecross.

Tan Te en$ accused 3a,id of not compl)in$ !ith the a$reement and denounced the latter to then The oath as la!)er is a prere+uisite to the practice of la! and ma) (e taen onl) (efore the SC () those

authori%ed () the latter to en$a$e in such practice. #espondents clearl) defied and challen$ed the orders of the SC () !illfull) tain$ the la!)er?s oath (efore the

notar) pu(lic despite the resolution of the SC den)in$ their petition to (e admitted to the (ar. The rulin$ of the lo!er court is !ron$ for assumin$ to (e an attorne) and actin$ as such !ithout

authorit)B is onl) one of the $rounds under #ule 6 section 9. Also () tain$ the oath of office as attorne)-at-la! and notif)in$ the SC of !hat the) had done and their intent to

practice la! in all courts of the


27/98


Facts: A$ra,a is the 3irector of the


28/98


orders to the cre! of the ,essel. o!e,er the anchor did not hold as epected. The speed of the ,essel did not slacen.A commotion ensued (et!een the cre! mem(ers. 1hen @a,ino in+uired a(out the commotion Qa,ano, assured @a,inothat there !as nothin$ to it.

The (o! of the ,essel rammed into the apron of the pier causin$ considera(le dama$e to the pier.


29/98


/ssue: 1=& ud$e &o)na) has the Durisdiction to handle the election cases in his sala.

eld: 7#C &ote: parts of the SC decision !ere in the FactsB portion since )ou !ill not understand the case if / placed it

in the (ottomB Ies.

ud$e &o)na) and Att). al(uena should also (e admonished. The Dud$e should (e reminded of his dut) to (e studious of the principles of la! to administer his office !ith duere$ard to the inte$rit) of the s)stem of the la! itself to (e faithful to the la! and to maintain professionalcompetence.

al(uena should also (e admonished for his utter carelessness in his references. #ule 40.02 mandates that a la!)er shall not no!in$l) mis+uote or misrepresent the tet of a decision or

authorit).

54 RIVERA 9 CORRAL

Facts: A decision in a case for eDectment !as sent to Att) Corral. is secretar) recei,ed the decision on Fe( 29 40. 'n *arch 49 40 Att) Corral filed a notice of appeal. The net da) Corral !ent to the 'ffice of the Cler of

Court to chan$e the date of receipt of the decision from Fe( 29 to Fe( 2 7!hich !as later chan$ed to Fe( 2;!hen Corral reali%ed that there !as no Fe( 2 that )ear8.


30/98


HELD YES' CONCEALED TRUTH

RATIO A la!)er must (e a disciple of truth e s!ore upon his admission that he !ill do no falsehood nor consent to the doin$ of an) in court As officer of the court his hi$h ,ocation is to correctl) inform the court upon the la! and facts of the case to aid it

in arri,in$ at the correct conclusion

The courts on the other hand are entitled to epect onl) complete honest) from la!)ers appearin$ and pleadin$(efore them is a la!)er?s solemn dut) is to defend his client his conduct must ne,er (e at the epense of truth

/n the case at (ar AT"@AS et al feel short of the duties and responsi(ilities epected of them as mem(ers ofthe (ar

Anticipatin$ that their *otion for ail !ill (e denied () the Court found that it had no Durisdiction o,er the personof the accused the) craftil) concealed the truth alle$in$ that the accused had ,oluntaril) surrendered

To no!in$l) alle$e an untrue statement in the pleadin$ is a contemptuous conduct that the Court stron$l)condemns

AT"@AS et al ,iolated their oath !hen the) resorted to deception ence AT"@AS et al should (e suspended for 6 months

56 HUEYSUWAN FLORIDO 9 FLORIDO

Facts:

&atasha ue)su!an-Florido 7-F8 filed this administrati,e complaint a$ainst her hus(and ames Florido for

,iolatin$ his oath as a la!)er () manufacturin$ flauntin$ and usn$ a spurious and (o$us CA resolution=order.

-F admits that she and her hus(and li,e separatel). The) ha,e t!o children. Sometime in 3ec. 2004 Florido

!ent to -F?s house and sho!ed her a photocop) of a resolution issued () the CA apparentl) $i,in$ to Florido the

le$al custod) of their children. -F dou(ted the authenticit) of the CA resolution so she did not $i,e her children

to Florido.

Then in 2002 !hile -F and her children !ere in the AC Learnin$ Center Florido arri,ed accompanied () armed

men. Florido demanded that -F surrender custod) of their children to him. -F fearin$ for her children?s safet)

called the police. /n the police station -F a$reed to let the children sleep !ith Florido Dust for one ni$ht at a

hotel. ut !hen -F heard of ne!s that Florido !as plannin$ to tae the children to acolod she immediatel)

too them a!a).

Florido then filed a petition for a !rit of ha(eas corpus on the (asis of the CA resolution he presented to -F

earlier. This petition !as dismissed (ecause Florido did not appear and -F presented a certification from the CA

that there !as no resolution $rantin$ Florido !ith le$al custod) of their children.

Thus this present action. The /< has recommended that Florido (e suspended from the practice of la! for 6

)ears.

/ssue:

1=n Florido should (e held lia(le for his actions.

eld:

SC sa)s that Florido should (e held lia(le. e ,iolated Canon 40 of the Code of


31/98


Facts: Att).


32/98


Armonio an associate prepared si$ned and filed the motion !ithout clearin$ it !ith an) one of thepartner of the firm

/SS": 1=& Att). Armonio and the partners in his firm must (e held in contempt (ecause of the disrespectful lan$ua$e

contained of the pleadin$ prepared () Att). Armonio."L3:

The SC decided that Att). Armonio (e !arned that repetition of the incident !ill (e dealt !ith more se,erel) andthat necessar) attention must (e emplo)ed () the partners in eercisin$ ade+uate super,ision and control of thepleadin$s su(mitted () its associate

The pleadin$ !hich contained one pit)all into '$ic$ t$is co%rt $as repeatedly fallen'$enever t$e -%risdictiono) t$e Co%rt o) Ind%strial Relations co&es into 1%estionB and the s!eepin$ char$e that the decisions of this courtblindly adhereto earlier r%lin(s 'it$o%t as &%c$ as &ain( an+ re)erence to and anal+sis o) t$e pertinentstat%esB implies that the court is so patentl) inept in determinin$ the Durisdiction of the industrial court it hascommitted error and continuousl) repeated that error to the point of perpetuation.

/mplicit in the +uoted statement is that the pronouncements of this court on the Durisdiction of the industrial courtare not entitled to respect. /t detract much from the di$nit) of and respect due this court.

/t is the dut) of la!)ers to o(ser,e and maintain the respect due to the courts of Dustice and Dudicial officers. /t ishis o(li$ation to maintain to!ards the courts a respectful attitude not for the sae of the temporar) incum(entsof the Dudicial office (ut for the maintenance of its supreme importance.

/t is proscri(es to use unnecessar) lan$ua$e !hich Deopardi%es hi$h esteem in courts creates or promotesdistrust in Dudicial administration or !hich could ha,e the effect of har(orin$ or encoura$in$ discontent !hich inman) cases us the source of disorder thus underminin$ the foundation upon !hich rests that (ul!ar called

Dudicial po!er .B The claim of Att). Armonio that his statements !as not in an) !a) meant to sli$ht or offend this court !ant of

intention is no ecuse for the lan$ua$e emplo)ed. 'ne cannot escape responsi(ilit) () claimin$ his !ords did notmean !hat an) reader must ha,e understood them as meanin$.

6: ANDRES 9 CA.RERA

Facts: Stanle) #. Ca(rera 7Ca(rera8 !as a successful (ar eaminee in 4JJ. Att). "milia Andres !as a le$al officer in the *inistr) of La(or. She dismissed a case filed () Ca(rera?s mother

a$ainst a certain Att). Fine of


33/98


sale suspended 68o The) alle$ed that le,) !as hi$hl) ecessi,e and unDusto ",en the !ife of 3amaso


34/98


Facts: Seelin spouses filed a case a$ainst Central 3)ein$ for +uietin$ of title. The spouses !on and the decision in their

fa,or (ecame final an eecutor). 1hen the spouses filed a *otion for an /mmediate 1rit of


35/98


of the time to file a petition for re,ie! of the decision of the CA he a$ain lost throu$h default () failin$ to file said petition.And


36/98


#afanan is fined 9000.

67 .ER.ANO 9 .ARCELONA

Facts: The heirs of ilapo appointed Att). 3aen as their att).-in-fact. Att). 3aen !as su(se+uentl) arrested () the*untinlupa police. The heirs of ilapo tried to loo for a la!)er to secure the release of Att). 3aen. The heirs !ererecommended to Att). arcelona. 1hen the spouses ,isited Att). 3aen the) learned that Att). 3aen had decidedto en$a$e the ser,ices of Att). arcelona. Att). arcelona then proceeded to tell the heirs if the) could produce


37/98


A((0 Paa* * *+*$",&"& )# 3 m),(-* #)m (-" $#a(" ) %a' -%" J+&/" Paa* *-a%% $a a ," )P12':::

6 NESTLE 9 SANCHE8

FACTS: From ul) ;-40 union mem(ers of nion of Filipro "mplo)ees or the Qim(erl) /ndependent La(or nion !ho filed

a case in court intensified their picets that the) had (een conductin$ since une 4J in front of the


38/98


@eneral rule: a client?s identit) should not (e shrouded in m)ster)o "ceptions: !here a stron$ pro(a(ilit) eists that re,ealin$ the client?s name !ould implicate that client

in the ,er) acti,it) for !hich he sou$ht the la!)er?s ad,iceo 1here disclosure !ould open the client to ci,il lia(ilit)o 1here re,ealin$ the identit) !ould furnish the onl) lin that !ould (e necessar) to con,ict an indi,idual

of a crime The prosecution should rel) on the stren$th of their e,idence and not on the !eaness of the defense #oco merel) stated that he !as actin$ as nominee-stocholder for the client and is part of le$itimate la!)erin$.

The ACC#A la!)ers also made such statement and should also (e dropped./n re: Canon 4

the relation of attorne) and client is strictl) personal and hi$hl) confidential and fiduciar) the la!)er is more than a mere a$ent or ser,ant (ecause he possesses special po!ers of trust and confidence

reposed on him () his client

71 DAROY 9 LEGASPI

FACTS:

Complainants char$ed Att). #amon Cha,e%- Le$aspi !ith malpractice for ha,in$ misappropriated the sum of#AT/':4. The relation (et!een an att) and his client is hi$l) fiduciar) in nature and of a ,er) delicate eactin$ and confidentialcharacter re+uirin$ a hi$h de$ree of fidelit) and $ood faith. /n ,ie! of that special relationship la!)ers are (ound topromptl) account for mone) or propert) recei,ed () them on (ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutesprofessional misconduct. The fact that a la!)er has a lien for fees on mone) in his hands collected for his clients does notrelie,e him from the dut) of promptl) accountin$ for the funds recei,ed.2. The complainants ho!e,er ha,e to reco,er the mone) in an ordinar) action and not in this dis(arment proceedin$.

72 DEE 9 CA

3ee and his father !ent to the residence of Att) *utuc to see his ad,ice re$ardin$ the pro(lem of the alle$edinde(tedness of petitioner?s (rother 3e!e) 3ee to Ceasar?s


39/98


merits attorne)?s fees for professional ser,ices rendered. To esta(lish the relationship it is sufficient that the ad,ice andassistance of an attorne) is sou$ht and recei,ed in an) matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation isimplied on the part of the attorne) from his actin$ on (ehalf of his client in pursuance of a re+uest from the latter.

Therefore *utuc is entitled to recei,e a reasona(le compensation.

Att) *utuc did not represent conflictin$ interests as claimed () 3ee !hen 3ee alle$ed that *utuc !as actin$ as a$ent ofCeasar?s 8 (rou$ht an action a$ainst Selim Assad to annul the sale of se,eral houses

and lot eected () ilado?s hus(and. 3el$ado et al. !as counsel for ilado !hile 'hnic et al filed an ans!er for Assad. Later on Att) Hicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad su(stitutin$ 'hnic et al. The firm of 3el$ado ur$ed Att) Francisco to stop representin$ Assad since there eists an att)-client relationship

(et!een him 7Francisco8 and the other part) 7ilado8 in the same case. /t !as alle$ed that ilado consulted Francisco re$ardin$ the case and that the former turned o,er papers to the

latter. From such documents Francisco sent a !ritten opinion to ilado. Since maulit si Francisco 3el$ado et al. sou$ht to dis+ualif) Francisco from representin$ Assad in the case. Francisco?s defense !as that he onl) met ilado once and this !as !hen the latter informed him a(out the case.

e added that !hen ilado left documents in their office he told his assistant to tell ilado that their firm !ouldnot handle her case. And that the !ritten opinion !as made () his assistant !hich he si$ned !ithout readin$and onl) for the purpose of eplainin$ to ilado !h) his firm reDected the case.

3a,id is the Dud$e tr)in$ the case !ho dismissed the complaint for dis+ualification a$ainst Francisco. Said Dud$e

reasoned that no attorne)-client relationship eisted (et!een ilado and Francisco.

/ssue:1as there an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and iladoGShould Att) Francisco (e dis+ualified from representin$ AssadG

eld:The firm of Francisco mailed a !ritten opinion to ilado on the merits of the case 7!ith Francisco?s si$nature8 this opinion!as reached on the (asis of papers su(mitted at his office and that ilado?s purpose in su(mittin$ those papers !as tosecure Francisco?s professional ser,ices. From these ultimate facts an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco andilado can (e said to ha,e ensued.



40/98


To constitute professional emplo)ment it is not essential that the client should ha,e emplo)ed the attorne) professionall)on an) pre,ious occasion. /t is not necessar) that an) retainer should ha,e (een paid promised or char$ed for neither isit material that the attorne) consulted did not after!ard undertae the case a(out !hich the consultation !as had. 1hen aperson consults !ith his attorne) in his professional capacit) !ith the ,ie! of o(tainin$ professional ad,ice or assistanceand the attorne) ,oluntaril) permits or ac+uiesces in such consultation then the professional emplo)ment must (ere$arded as esta(lished.

The eistence of attorne)-client relationship precludes the attorne) from representin$ 7and recei,in$ a retainer from8 the

opposite part) in the same case.

An information professionall) o(tained () an attorne) from a client is sacred to the emplo)ment to !hich it pertains andto permit it (e used in the interest of another or in the interest of the ad,erse part) is to strie at the element ofconfidence !hich forms the (asis of an attorne)-client relationship.

The rule inhi(itin$ an attorne) from actin$ in (ehalf of (oth parties is implied in the #ules of Court 7!ala pan$ codifiedcodes of professional responsi(ilit) noon8.

The defense that Francisco ne,er read the !ritten opinion nor the documents su(mitted () ilado !ill not preclude theeistence of an attorne)-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did $i,e ilado a formal professional ad,ice from!hich emer$ed the relation. The letter (inds and estops him in the same manner and de$ree as if he !rote it personall).And an information o(tained from a client () a mem(er or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm.

The failure to o(Dect to counsel?s appearance does not operate as a !ai,er of the ri$ht to as for counsel?s dis+ualification.

*otion for dis+ualification a$ainst Attorne) Francisco should (e allo!ed.

A retainin$ fee 7Dust in case itanon$8 is a preliminar) fee $i,en to an attorne) or counsel to insure and secure his futureser,ices and induce him to act for the client.

75 SANTOS 9 .ELTRAN

SW.

76 NA>PIL 9 VALDES

Facts: ose &apil !as interested in a piece of propert) situated in *oran a$uio. e !ent into an a$reement !ith Att).

Carlos Haldes for the latter to (u) the propert) in trust for &apil. Haldes did (u) the propert) () contractin$ 2 loans. The lands? titles !ere transferred to his name. 1hen ose &apil died /melda &apil 7his !ife8 ac+uired the ser,ices of Haldes and his accountin$ and la! firms

for the settlement of the estate of ose &apil. 1hat Haldes did !as to eclude the propert) in a$uio from the list of assets of ose &apil 7he actuall)

transferred the propert) to his compan) the Ca,al #ealt) Corporation8 !hile includin$ the loans he contracted. 1hat /melda did !as to file a suit for recon,e)ance in the CF/. 1hile the case !as pendin$ /melda also filed an

administrati,e complaint for dis(arment a$ainst Haldes. The CF/ dismissed the action for recon,e)ance. The CA re,ersed the CF/. The complaint for recon,e)ance !ent up to the SC and !as decided in fa,or of &apil. The SC held that Haldes

onl) held the lots in trust for &apil./ssue:

1=n Att). Haldes should (e administrati,el) sanctioned for his acts namel):o "cludin$ the propert) in a$uio from the estate of ose &apilo /ncludin$ his loans as claims on the estate ando Apparentl) representin$ conflictin$ interests !hen his accountin$ firm prepared the list of claims of

creditors An$el &apil and "&'#& a$ainst the estate of ose &apil !hich !as represented () his la!

firm.eld: The SC found Haldes $uilt) of misconduct and suspends him for 4 )ear. The Court held that the first t!o acts clearl) sho! that Haldes (roe the trust reposed on him () /melda &apil

!hen the latter a$reed to use his professional ser,ices as a la!)er and an accountant. /t !as clear that ose&apil and Att). Came to an a$reement that the latter !ould (e (u)in$ the propert) in trust for ose. ) his act ofecludin$ the propert) from the estate and includin$ the loans he contracted 7and used for his o!n (enefit8 asclaims Haldes too for $ranted the trust formed (et!een ose and him 7the) had a close relationship since the50?s8 !hich !as the (asis for /melda?s decision to use his ser,ices.

As to the third char$e !e hold respondent $uilt) of representin$ conflictin$ interests !hich is proscri(ed ()Canon 45 #ule 45.09. /n the case at (ar there is no +uestion that the interests of the estate and that of its



41/98


creditors are ad,erse to each other. #espondentOs accountin$ firm prepared the list of assets and lia(ilities of theestate and at the same time computed the claims of t!o creditors of the estate. There is clearl) a conflict(et!een the interest of the estate !hich stands as the de(tor and that of the t!o claimants !ho are creditors ofthe estate.

77 ARTE8UELA 9 MADERA8O

Facts: "cha,ia had a ,ehicular accident in *andaue Cit). "cha,ia !as dri,in$ a Ford Telstar o!ned () a apanese national(ut in the name of his (rother-in-la! Hillape%. The car rammed into a small carinderia o!ned () Arte%uela.

Arte%uela en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). *adera%o in filin$ a dama$e suit a$ainst "cha,ia. Arte%uela paid*adera%o the amount of


42/98


hearin$. Since the ud$e refused to $rant postponement &atan handled the case personall) (ein$ an attorne)himself.

Thereafter Capule represented 'limpio


43/98


la!)ers is !hether the acceptance of a ne! relation !ill pre,ent an att) from the full dischar$e of his dut) ofundi,ided fidelit) and lo)alt) to his client or in,ite suspicion of unfaithfulness or dou(le-dealin$ in theperformance thereof. /n the same manner it is undou(tedl) a conflict of interests for an att) to put himself in aposition !here self-interest tempts or !orse actuall) impels him to do less than his (est for his client.

9. Att) *arino. oth as la!)er and president of the union !as dut) (ound to protect and ad,ance the interest of theunion mem(ers and the (ar$ainin$ unit a(o,e his o!n. This o(li$ation !as Deopardi%ed !hen his personal interestcomplicated the ne$otiation process and e,entuall) resulted in the lopsided compromise a$reement that ri$htl)or !ron$l) (rou$ht mone) to him at the epense of the other facult) mem(ers. e also ou$ht to ha,e disclosedhis interest 7!hich he onl) did onl) )ears after the consummation of his share.. ts (ad.8

2 SUNTAY 9 SUNTAY

Facts:The complaint for dis(arment !as filed () Frederico Sunta) a$ainst his nephe! Att) Sunta) alle$in$ that respondent !ashis le$al counsel !ho !as pri,) to all his le$al and political affairs. Since the) parted !a)s Att) Sunta) had (een filin$complaints and cases a$ainst complainant main$ use of confidential information $ained !hile their attorne)-clientrelationship eisted.

/n addition complainant Sunta) alle$ed that respondent Att) Sunta) pursued a case a$ainst him for ,iolation of ) etortin$ mone) from his client throu$h deceit and misrepresentation respondent Limon has reduced the la!

profession to a le,el so (ase so lo! and dishonora(le and most contempti(le. e has sullied the inte$rit) of his (rethren in the la! and has indirectl) eroded the peoplesO confidence in the

Dudicial s)stem. ) his reprehensi(le conduct !hich is reflecti,e of his depra,ed character respondent has madehimself un!orth) to remain in the #oll of Attorne)s.



44/98


4 SEVILLA 9 SALU.RE

Facts: Salu(re prior to (ein$ a Dud$e !as Se,illa?s counsel in a ci,il case for repurchase and dama$es. pon ad,ice of Salu(re Se,illa $a,e


45/98


RATIO /t !as esta(lished that the


46/98


o,er. Att). *eneses should ha,e made an accountin$ !ith his client of the amount he recei,ed.

CASTILLO 9 TAGUINES

Facts: Castillo alle$ed that Att). Ta$uines failed to del,er to him


47/98


in all his dealin$s !ith his client and must hold in trust all mone)s and properties of his client a la!)er !ho practices deceit in his dealin$s !ith his client not onl) ,iolates his dut) of fidelit) lo)alt) and

de,otion to the client?s cause (ut also de$rades himself and (esmirches the name of an honora(le profession.

: MELENDRES 9 DECENA

Facts:74stcause of action8

Au$. 5 4J5: Complainants 7spouses "rlinda 3alman R &arciso *elendre%8 o(tained from Att). #e)nerio 3ecena73ecena8 a loan of


48/98


indefinitel). !hat he ,iolated !as the rule that a la!)er is (ound to o(ser,e candor fairness and lo)alt) in all hisdealin$ and transactions !ith his client. And that Att) @rupo did &ot ,iolate #ule 46 (ecause unio consented toand ratified to the use of the mone) as e,idenced () the


49/98


/ssue: 1=& the case a$ainst *auricio should (e dismissed.

eld: &o. e should (e suspended for 6 months.

1hen respondent accepted


50/98


!ere redeemed () "#&A&3"N !hen their mort$a$es fell due /n 4J "#&A&3"N came to no! that ATTI @' did not sell her lots as a$reed (ut instead he paid her creditors

!ith his o!n funds and had her land titles re$istered in his name depri,in$ her of real propert) !orth millions "#&A&3"N filed a complaint !ith the /< /


51/98


3e Liano asserts that the CA erred in declarin$ that the appeal (e dismissed on the (asis of the lapses incompl)in$ !ith the technical re+uirements in main$ of (rief.

/ssue: 1=& the dismissal of the Appeal !as proper.

eld: T-" &*m**a% ) (-" !#" a* $#)$"#0All appeals are merel) ri$hts that arise from statutes thus the) must (e eercised in the manner

prescri(ed () la!. /t is to this end that rules $o,ernin$ pleadin$s must (e eercised in the manner prescri(ed ()la!. These technical rules lie the inclusion of the statement of factsB or the su(Dect indeB in the (rief are meant

to ena(le the appellate court to ha,e a (etter $rasp of the matter entrusted to it for appraisal.#ele,ant to the topic: G","#a%%' (-" ,"/%/"," ) (-" )+,*"% !,&* (-" %",(0 ",en if Att).

Afa(le ma) (e said to (e S*C?s counsel this does not operate in fa,or of 3e Liano. A corporation is an artificial(ein$ !hose Duridical personalit) is onl) a fiction created () la! and it can onl) eercise po!ers and transact its(usiness throu$h its (oard of directors and its a$ents. T-a( A((0 Aa!%" a* %)(-"& (- *+",( a+(-)#(() !,& SMC * +,&*$+(a!%"0 SMC* !)a#& #"*)%+(), a(("*(* () (-a(0 A* *+-' SMC m+*( !" -"%& !)+,&! (-" a(+a(),* ) (* )+,*"%' A((0 Aa!%"0

TA.AS 9 MANGI.IN

Facts:

A deed of mort$a$e !as deli,ered to ilda Ta(as e,idencin$ a real propert) in La nion that !as mort$a$ed toher () @al,an. The deed of mort$a$e !as re$istered in the #e$ister of 3eeds of La nion.

Su(se+uentl) a certain Lilia CastilleDos represented herself as Ta(as and appeared (efore *an$i(in !ho !as anotar) pu(lic and ased the latter to prepare a dischar$e of the mort$a$e and to notari%e it after!ards.

*an$i(in prepared the dischar$e of real estate mort$a$e !ithout asin$ CastilleDos for an)thin$ to ser,e asidentification ecept for a Communit) Ta Certificate 7CTC8. This ena(led @al,an to mort$a$e the propert) a$ainthis time to a rural (an

Ta(as informed *an$i(in that her si$nature in the +uestioned dischar$e of #"* !as for$ed (ut *an$i(in didnothin$ to help. e e,en threatened to file a counter suit a$ainst her if she files a case a$ainst him.

Ta(as filed this complaint for dis(arment. *an$i(in admitted that the dischar$e of #"* !as a for$er) (ut interposed the defense that it !as (e)ond the

scope of his dut) to ascertain the identit) of persons appearin$ (efore him and that he had no a,aila(le means ofascertainin$ their real identities.

/ssue:1=& *an$i(in should (e held administrati,el) lia(le for ne$li$ence in the performance of his dut) as a notar) pu(lic toascertain the identit) of the person appearin$ (efore him.

eld:I"S *an$i(in !as ne$li$ent in performin$ such dut).

&otari%ation is in,ested !ith pu(lic interest. /t con,erts a pri,ate document into a pu(lic one main$ itadmissi(le in court !ithout further proof of its authenticit). Such document is () la! entitled to full faith andcredit upon its face. Courts administrati,e a$encies and the pu(lic must (e a(le to rel) upon anacno!led$ement () a notar) pu(lic appended to a document.

A notar) pu(lic should not notari%e a document unless the person !ho si$ned the same is the ,er) same person!ho eecuted and personall) appeared (efore him to attest to the contents and truth of matters stated in thedocument.

*an$i(in should ha,e re+uested other forms of identification or ased +uestions to ascertain her identit). *an$i(in ,iolated the &otarial La! and Canon 4. is notarial commission is re,oed and he is dis+ualified from

reappointment as notar) pu(lic for 2 )ears.

SANTUYO 9 HIDALGO

FACTS: Santu)o purchased a parcel of land co,ered () a deed of sale !hich !as notari%ed () idal$o and !as entered in

his notarial re$ister 6 )ears after the date of notari%ation Santu)o had a dispute !ith 3anilo @erman o,er the o!nership of the land @ermen presented an affida,it of idal$o den)in$ the authenticit) if his si$nature on the deed of sale and that it

!as for$ed Santu)o ar$ued that:

o The deed of sale contained all the formalities of a dul) notari%ed documento The) had no access to the dr) seal of idal$o

idal$o on the other hand claimed that:



52/98


o e !as on ,acation at the time that the deed !as alle$edl) notari%edo An eamination of the document !ill pro,e that his si$nature !as for$edo e !ould ha,e remem(ered Santu)o for he re+uires that the parties ehi(it their communit) ta

certificates and made them personall) acno!led$e the documents (efore he notari%e documents /


53/98


"mma de uan d!as dismissed () Triple AAA !ithout notice. She ased for the assistance of anaha! roadcastin$Compan) 7C8 to search for a la!)er. The ne! la!)er Att). 'scar arria /// !ho !ored !ith C offerin$ freele$al ser,ices to indi$ents (ecame the counsel of de uan in the &L#C case a$ainst Triple

AAA for ille$al dismissal. 1hen an ad,erse &L#C decision !as rendered a$ainst de uan she ased Att) aria as to !hat to do net. Att)

replied


54/98


e 7*acalino8 !as sanctioned () the lo!er courts and !as fined () the SC for


55/98


After $oin$ throu$h the documents ATTI &A#AHAL a$reed to (e #'LL'&?S la!)er and re+uired her to pa)


56/98


1ith respect to respondent Att). A$uirre r. his eplanation is reasona(le and satisfactor). Complainants eceptfor their unsu(stantiated alle$ations ne,er offered an) satisfactor) e,idence to !arrant the conclusion that Att).A$uirre r. acted maliciousl) in allo!in$ /LC'


57/98


C/#:


58/98



59/98


Facts: An$elina @ue,arra !hile talin$ to Consuelo 3e @arcia o!ner of La ulaena #estaurant reco$ni%ed her

7@ue,arra?s8 rin$ in the fin$er of *rs @arcia. She in+uired !here she (ou$ht it. Apparentl) @ue,arra?s rin$ !as stolen from her house in Fe(ruar) 452. @arcia handed the rin$ to @ue,arra and

it fitted her fin$er. The) (rou$ht the rin$ to *r. #e(ullida !here the rin$ !as alle$edl) (ou$ht and he concluded that it !as indeed

the rin$ that @ue,arra (ou$ht from him in 4J. ut the rin$ !as returned to @arcia !ho later on didn?t return the rin$ an)more. @arcia claims it !as lost.

A case !as filed. 3urin$ !hich an etra-Dudicial admission () @arcia !as done. She claims there that she (ou$htthe rin$ from different persons the ultimate source (ein$ Alin$


60/98


CA

The Court interpretin$ these pro,isions uniforml) emphasi%ed that the pre-trial is mandator) that the parties as!ell as their counsel !ho are re+uired to appear thereat must 'T (e notified of the same

/n other proceedin$s presence of parties is not necessar) so notice to counsel operates as notice to client (ut in apre-trial presence of parties is a must (ecause one of the purposes of a pre-trial is to eplore the possi(ilit) of anamica(le settlement 7!hich a counsel cannot compromise a(sent epress authori%ation8 so notice to the parties isnecessar)

#ecords sho! that since onl) the counsel for "**A&"L H/CT'#/A "T AL !as notified of the pre-trial suchnotification is neither ade+uate nor sufficient for purposes of a pre-trial

ud$ment of CA affirmed

NOTEATTI CA


61/98


1=n Salon$a?s alle$ation of etrinsic fraud and denial of due process o(tain to Dustif) annulment of the defaultDud$ment rendered () the #TC.

eld: SC sa)s &'.


62/98


petitioner?s (rief on its due date. e neither communicated to A$uilar nor !ithdre! his appearance as counsel.A$uilar?s attempts to contact his counsel !ere futile.

A$uilar hired Att). Arias as his ne! counsel and the latter entered his appearance in the case and ased anetension of 5 da)s to su(mit the appellant?s (rief.

The motion !as denied for ha,in$ (een filed out of time. CA su(se+uentl) denied A$uilar?s motion to dismiss andhis appeal.

'n the other hand Sal,ador !as $ranted an etension of time to file her (rief and the (rief !as admitted e,enthou$h filed (e)ond the $race period.

/ssue: 1=& CA committed @A3 !hen it dismissed A$uilar?s appeal for failure to file his appellant?s (rief on time.

eld: I"S. There is no reason to treat the t!o appellants differentl). oth alle$edl) conspired in committin$ the crime of

estafa. Their cases rest on the same facts. "+ual protection of the la! demands that persons situated similarl)(e treated alie.

A$uilar faces a Dail term of 4J )rs and mos to 20 )rs. e cannot lose his li(ert) (ecause of the $rossirresponsi(ilit) of his la!)er.

Losin$ li(ert) () default of an insensiti,e la!)er should (e fro!ned upon despite the fiction that a client is (ound() the mistaes of his la!)er. The said rule must onl) (e applied to ad,ance the ends of Dustice not !hen thecircumstances of the case it (ecomes a hindrance to Dustice.

/n a criminal proceedin$ !here certain e,idence !as not presented (ecause of counsel?s error or incompetencene! trial ma) (e $ranted if the defendant satisfies the court that: 48 he has a $ood defense and that 28 ac+uittal!ould in all pro(a(ilit) ha,e follo!ed the introduction of the omitted e,idence.

CA should ha,e considered the fact that the appellant?s (rief !as alread) filed and is alread) in the records of thecase. This sho!s earnest efforts of counsel and petitioner to (e heard and lac of intention to cause dela).

11 SALONGA 9 CA

FACTS:Astra o!ned a propert located at el-Air Hilla$e *aati.*ontoDima leased this propert) and opened a restaurant !hich did not prosper*ontoDima thereafter entered into a Doint ,enture a$reement 7HA8 !ith


63/98


filed for specific performance. Le$arda?s counsel 3ean Antonio Coronel re+uested a 40-da) etension to file an ans!er !hich !as $ranted. ut

3ean Coronel failed to file an ans!er !ithin that period. Catha) presented e,idence e parte. Catha) !on the case 7Qata) si Le$arda8. Ser,ice of decision !as made on

3ean Coronel (ut he still did not do an)thin$. The XC propert) !as then le,ied and auctioned off to pa) for the Dud$ment de(t. Catha)?s mana$er Ca(rera !as

the hi$hest (idder in the auction. Le$arda did not redeem the propert) !ithin the 4 )ear period. Qahit natalo na sila dahil !alan$ $ina$a!a si 3ean 7hindi n$a ni)a sina(ihan si Le$arda un$ ano na nan$)ari sa

aso nila na !ala na )un$ lupa8 Le$arda still did not lose faith in her counsel. 3ean Coronel then filed a petition for annulment of Dud$ment. 8

So Le$arda hired a ne! la!)er. &e! la!)er ased for annulment of Dud$ment upon the $round that the oldla!)er !as ne$li$ent in his duties. The petition !as $ranted and the sale of the XC propert) to (e set aside.

The SC said that there !as unDust enrichment on the part of Catha) (ecause of the recless inecusa(le and$ross ne$li$ence of 3ean Coronel.

ence this motion for reconsideration of SC decision.

/ssue: 1=& Le$arda can (e (ound () the $ross ne$li$ence of her counsel

eld: Ies. 'ri$inal decision is reinstated 7Le$arda^loser8 As lon$ as a part) !as $i,en the opportunit) to defend her interests in due course she cannot (e said to ha,e

(een denied due process of la!.

/f indeed Le$arda is innocent then all the more that Catha) is innocent. et!een t!o innocent parties the one!ho made it possi(le for the !ron$ to (e done should (e the one to (ear the resultin$ loss. Le$arda misDud$ed and hired the ser,ices of 3ean Coronel !ho in the end sort of a(andoned her case. 3ecision !as res ipso final due to failure to appeal the decision.

121 AL.ANO 9 COLOMA

FACTS: An$el Al(ano alle$es that !hen he and his mom retained the ser,ices of Att).


64/98


mem(ers. 'n appeal to the SC the court modified the decision of the &L#C () deletin$ the a!ard of mid )ear and )ear-end (onus. an complied !ith such decision.

Att) Cru% thereafter notified the union the T# mana$ement and the &L#C of his ri$ht to eercise and enforce hisattorne)Os lien o,er the a!ard of holida) pa). e demanded the pa)ment of 40K of the total a!ard. nion opposed thedemand. &L#C ruled in fa,or of Att) Cru%.

The union insists that it is not $uilt) of unDust enrichment (ecause all attorne)Os fees due to Att) Cru% !ere co,ered () theretainer fee of


65/98


124 SES.REO 9 CA

Facts: #aul Ses(re_o replaced Att)


66/98


ISSUE W


67/98


(u)in$=ac+uirin$ the propert) of his clients !hich is the su(Dect of a pendin$ case. This Court has held that thepurchase () a la!)er of his clientOs propert) or interest in liti$ation is a (reach of professional ethics andconstitutes malpractice. And althou$h the Code of


68/98


eld: &o. e should (e suspended for 6 months.

1hen respondent accepted


69/98


/SS": 1=& the trial court still has Durisdiction o,er the case 49 )ears after it rendered a final Dud$ment

"L3: &o the court no lon$er has Durisdiction o,er the claim for attorne)?s fees. 'nce a court ac+uires Durisdiction o,er a case it retains such Durisdiction until the final termination of the case. /t

loses its Durisdiction upon the finalit) of the decision A final decision cannot (e amended or corrected ecept for clerical errors mistaes or misprisions.

/n the +uestioned order the court ordered Li%ardo to pa) attorne)?s fees to counsel. That is not decreed in theDud$ment. Such ,ariance rendered the order ,oid. 1hat the la!)er ma) do is file an independent action a$ainst petitioner for collection.

131 CUETO 9 JIMENE8

FACTS:- "n$r. Ale Cueto en$a$ed the ser,ices of Att). ose imene% r. as notar) pu(lic (ein$ the father of the (uildin$ of theConstruction A$reement to (e notari%ed. After notari%in$ the a$reement imene% demanded


70/98


mentioned a$encies.- alon later claimed that he $a,e


71/98


/ssue:/s Att) amilton $uilt) of professional misconductG

eld:Ies and he should (e suspended for 6 )ears. The eistence of an attorne)-client relationship could (e esta(lished () o,ertacts. ) acceptin$ papers relatin$ to the claim the confidential relationship !as esta(lished. amilton also counseled !ithAndrada re$ardin$ the su(Dect matter of the suit. The fact that he did not allo! his name to (e place () the cler of courtas attorne) of record for Andrada 7!hen the papers !ere filed8 can onl) (e considered as proof of lac of $ood faith !ith

the client to !home he !as renderin$ professional ser,ices. A stipulated fee is not necessar) to esta(lish the relationshipeither.

) representin$ the opposin$ part) in the same case 7!ithout the other?s consent8 and () refusin$ to surrender thedocuments recei,ed from Andrada 7until there !ere court orders8 counsel ,iolated the confidence (et!een him andAndrada. e did not offer his ser,ices in $ood faith to his client.

As to the claim that the letter to S.L. oseph !as pri,ile$ed there !as no proof that there !as an attorne)-clientrelationship (et!een amilton and S.L. oseph. Furthermore in a dis(arment proceedin$ !here the alle$ed client himselfis not insistin$ on the pri,ile$e counsel cannot (e permitted to shield himself (ehind the pri,ile$e.

135 HILADO 9 DAVID

Facts: landina ilado 7$anda n$ pan$alan>8 (rou$ht an action a$ainst Selim Assad to annul the sale of se,eral houses

and lot eected () ilado?s hus(and. 3el$ado et al. !as counsel for ilado !hile 'hnic et al filed an ans!er for Assad. Later on Att) Hicente Francisco entered his appearance for Assad su(stitutin$ 'hnic et al. The firm of 3el$ado ur$ed Att) Francisco to stop representin$ Assad since there eists an att)-client relationship

(et!een him 7Francisco8 and the other part) 7ilado8 in the same case. /t !as alle$ed that ilado consulted Francisco re$ardin$ the case and that the former turned o,er papers to the

latter. From such documents Francisco sent a !ritten opinion to ilado. Since maulit si Francisco 3el$ado et al. sou$ht to dis+ualif) Francisco from representin$ Assad in the case. Francisco?s defense !as that he onl) met ilado once and this !as !hen the latter informed him a(out the case.

e added that !hen ilado left documents in their office he told his assistant to tell ilado that their firm !ouldnot handle her case. And that the !ritten opinion !as made () his assistant !hich he si$ned !ithout readin$and onl) for the purpose of eplainin$ to ilado !h) his firm reDected the case.

3a,id is the Dud$e tr)in$ the case !ho dismissed the complaint for dis+ualification a$ainst Francisco. Said Dud$ereasoned that no attorne)-client relationship eisted (et!een ilado and Francisco.

/ssue:

1as there an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco and iladoGShould Att) Francisco (e dis+ualified from representin$ AssadG

eld:The firm of Francisco mailed a !ritten opinion to ilado on the merits of the case 7!ith Francisco?s si$nature8 this opinion!as reached on the (asis of papers su(mitted at his office and that ilado?s purpose in su(mittin$ those papers !as tosecure Francisco?s professional ser,ices. From these ultimate facts an attorne)-client relationship (et!een Francisco andilado can (e said to ha,e ensued.

To constitute professional emplo)ment it is not essential that the client should ha,e emplo)ed the attorne) professionall)on an) pre,ious occasion. /t is not necessar) that an) retainer should ha,e (een paid promised or char$ed for neither isit material that the attorne) consulted did not after!ard undertae the case a(out !hich the consultation !as had. 1hen aperson consults !ith his attorne) in his professional capacit) !ith the ,ie! of o(tainin$ professional ad,ice or assistanceand the attorne) ,oluntaril) permits or ac+uiesces in such consultation then the professional emplo)ment must (ere$arded as esta(lished.

The eistence of attorne)-client relationship precludes the attorne) from representin$ 7and recei,in$ a retainer from8 theopposite part) in the same case.

An information professionall) o(tained () an attorne) from a client is sacred to the emplo)ment to !hich it pertains andto permit it (e used in the interest of another or in the interest of the ad,erse part) is to strie at the element ofconfidence !hich forms the (asis of an attorne)-client relationship.

The rule inhi(itin$ an attorne) from actin$ in (ehalf of (oth parties is implied in the #ules of Court 7!ala pan$ codifiedcodes of professional responsi(ilit) noon8.

The defense that Francisco ne,er read the !ritten opinion nor the documents su(mitted () ilado !ill not preclude the



72/98


eistence of an attorne)-client relationship. The fact remains that his firm did $i,e ilado a formal professional ad,ice from!hich emer$ed the relation. The letter (inds and estops him in the same manner and de$ree as if he !rote it personall).And an information o(tained from a client () a mem(er or assistant of the firm is information imparted to the firm.

The failure to o(Dect to counsel?s appearance does not operate as a !ai,er of the ri$ht to as for counsel?s dis+ualification.

*otion for dis+ualification a$ainst Attorne) Francisco should (e allo!ed.

A retainin$ fee 7Dust in case itanon$8 is a preliminar) fee $i,en to an attorne) or counsel to insure and secure his future

ser,ices and induce him to act for the client.

136 REGALA 9 SANDIGAN.AYAN

Facts:


73/98


/t appears that


74/98


&$a)an had alread) prescri(ed and that &$a)an ased him to mae the offense more $ra,e to pre,ent the offense fromprescri(in$. This constitutes an act of offensi,e personalit) a$ainst complainants ,iolati,e of par.7f8 Sec.20 #ule 49;.

13 PFLEIDER 9 PALANCA

FACTS:- - There is no su(stantial (lame a$ainst


75/98


FACTS:- Complaint for dis(arment filed () 1ill iam 'n$ @enato a$ainst Att). "sse Silapan- The ,arious criminal and ci,il cases !ere not discussed (ecause it !as left for the trial courts to decide. 7@enato lentSilapan mone) to purchase a ne! car. Silapan mort$a$ed his house and lot. 1hen S/lapan failed to pa) @"nato sou$ht theforeclosure of the mort$a$e and tried to encash a postdated chec issued () Silapan !hich su(se+uentl) (ounced.8 TheCourt in this case cannot sanction Att). Silapanfor his issuance of a (ouncin$ chec.- 1hen @enato filed a < 22 case a$ainst Att). Silapan the latter alle$ed in his ans!er that durin$ the pre,ious case

7criminal case8 @enato !anted Att) Silapan to offer (ri(e mone) to mem(ers of 3' e,en the prosecutor and presidin$Dud$e. Att). S/lapan refused since such acts are immoral and ille$al (ut also (ecause Othe complainant confided to him thathe !as reall) in,ol,ed in the commission of the crimethat !as char$edO.

/SS": 1o& Att). Silapan committed a (reach of trust and confidence () imputin$ to @enato ille$al practices anddisclosin$ alle$ed intention to (ri(e $o,t officials in connection !ith a pendin$ caseG

"L3: &'. The pri,ile$e a$ainst disclosure of confidential communications or information is limited onl) tocommunications !hich are le$itimatel) and properl) !ithin the scope of a la!ful emplo)ment of a la!)er. /t does notetend to those made in contemplation of a crime or perpetuation of a fraud. A la!)er is not a $un for hire.

/SS": 1o& disclosures !ere indispensa(le to protect Att). SilapanOs ri$hts (ecause the) !ere pertinent to the foreclosurecase

"L3: &'. /t !as improper for the respondent to use it a$ainst @enato in the foreclosure case (ecause it !as not the

su(Dect matter of liti$ation and ATt). S/lapanOs professional competence and le$al ad,ice !ere not (ein$ attaced in thatcase. A la!)er must conduct himself especiall) in his dealin$s !ith his clients !ith inte$rit) in a manner that is (e)ondreproach. 7Att) Silapan !as ordered 4 )ear suspension8

142 .ACARRO 9 CA

FACTS:acarro is the re$istered o!ner of a lot located in Ca$a)an de 'ro cit). e claims that he !as compelled () the *unicipal

ud$e of aun$in uidnon to appear (efore the Dud$eOs ofice and then and there coerced and forced under threat ofprosecution and loss saidland to eecute a deed of recon,e)ance of 4=2 of the land to @aerlan. acarro then filed a complaint for the annulment ofsaid deed of recon,e)ance.

Att) Luminarias and Ca(allero entered their appearance in said cas as counsel of acarro in colla(oration !ith Att)


76/98


77/98


each indi,idual claimant should other!ise manifest (efore the court.

Case !as remanded to the A$rarian Court.

145 DOMINGO SR0 9 A=UINO

FACTS Court of First /nstance appro,ed mone) claim of AX/&' a$ainst the "state of 3omin$o and ordered

Administratri STA *A#/A to pa) ES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD .INDING UPON THECLIENT

RATIO#ecords sho! that ATTI &S'& !as the counsel of record of the "STAT" 'F 3'*/&@' in the appellate court and ne,erfiled an) !ithdra!al as such counsel. ",en after the remo,al of ATTI 3'*/&@' as administrator of the estate ATTI&S'& filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate.

*oreo,er !hile it ma) (e true that ATTI &S'& ceased as counsel for the estate and for the former administrator !henthe intestate court $ranted his motion to !ithdra! as counsel () ,irtue of his appointment to and assumption of pu(licoffice of Assistant Administrator of the Su$ar Xuota Administration this !as true onl) as far as the intestate court !asconcerned. e continued on record in the appellate court and did not file an) !ithdra!al as co

Documents

Legal Ethics Case Digest Compiled-libre