BUTED vs HERNANDO Facts: The respondent Atty.

Hernando claims that his lawyer-client relationship towards the complainant spouses was terminated on December 4, 1969. The common heirs of Abadilla who happen to be the re istered co-owners in the ori inal certificate of title co!erin "ot #o. 94$9-% see&s cancellation of the Transfer 'ertificate of Title issued to the complaint spouses. (ithout the latter)s consent, respondent Hernando filed a petition on the behalf of the common heirs and e!en appeared in cadastral proceedin s a ainst the complaint spouses. Issue: (hether or not the respondent had a conflict interests under the aforementioned circumstances. Discussion of the Court: *!en the respondent denied of ha!in a!ailed himself of any confidential information relatin to "ot 94$9-%, the fact per se that the respondent had acted as counsel for %enito %olisay in the action for specific performance should ha!e prohibited respondent from actin or appearin as counsel for the other side in the subse+uent petition for cancellation of the T'T of the spouses ,enerosa and %enito %olisay. %esides, the 'anons of -rofessional *thics asserts that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case which he has represented him but after the relation of attorney and client terminated and it is not a ood practice to permit him afterwards to defend in another case other persons a ainst his former client under the prete.t that the case is distinct from, and independent of the former case. Ruling of the Su re!e Court: Atty. Hernando was suspended from his practice of law for a period of fi!e months that whene!er he will commit the same offense a ain, he will be sub/ected to a more se!ere penalty. NA"#I$ vs %A$DE& Facts: 0ose #a&pil was then interested in purchasin a summer residence in 1oran 2treet, %a uio 'ity but due to lac& of funds, he as&ed respondent to purchase the 1oran property for him. They both a reed that the latter would &eep the property in trust for the #a&pils until they could fully pay it bac&. As re ards to their a reement, respondent obtained two loans which cost -63, 444.44 and -53, 444.44. He e!entually used the said amount in purchasin and reno!atin the property. The title was then issued in respondent)s name. (hen 0ose #a&pil died, his widow and complainant 6melda #a&pil was appointed as the administrati. of 0ose)s estate. Durin the proceedin s for its settlement, the complainant notice that the 1oran property was not included in the in!entory of 0ose)s estate. 7n one hand, the respondent insists his absolute ri ht on the said property. Issue: (hether or not the respondent uses his le al e.pertise in depri!in his le al client of the 1oran property.

Discussion of the Court: 6f the respondent really belie!ed that he owned the said property, he should ha!e at least informed complainant of his ad!erse claim so that /ust in case that both parties won)t a ree on its ownership, the respondent should ha!e formally presented his claim in the intestate proceedin s instead of transferrin the property to his own corporation without any notice i!en to the complainant and the /ud e in the estate proceedin s. The respondent)s defense that he could not be char ed because his alle ed 8misconduct9 pertains to his accountin practice was not accepted by the 'ourt because the rule states that a lawyer must be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, e!en if it pertains to his pri!ate acti!ities, as lon as it shows him to be wantin in moral character, honesty, probity or ood demeanor. Ruling of the Court: The 'ourt finds Atty. 'arlos 0. :alde; uilty of misconduct. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and at the e!ent that he will !iolate similar infraction, he will be dealin more se!ere punishment. $AO vs 'EDE$ Facts: The respondent has an outstandin obli ation of -<<, 444.44 with *n r. "ao. Aside from issuin dishonored chec&s as payment for his debt to the latter, he didn)t comply with his promise to pay the complainant. 7n their scheduled hearin of 6%--'%D, the respondent suddenly insisted on e.cusin him because he needs to attend a family emer ency. Howe!er, the complainant)s counsel ob/ected and 'ommissioner 'unanan ordered him to wait. 6nstead of obeyin the said order, he yelled and arro antly left. Issue: (hether or not the deliberate failure to pay debt and the issuance of worthless chec&s =%.- <<> constitute ross misconduct. Discussion of the Court: The respondent a!ers that failure of payin debts and issuin worthless chec&s is neither a !iolation of the 'ode of -rofessional ?esponsibility@ nor dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. #e!ertheless, the 'ourt maintains the rule of 'anon 1 of the 'ode of ?esponsibility which mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. 1oreo!er, he must promptly pay his financial obli ations because the 'ourt may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or pri!ate misconduct showin them to be wantin in moral character, honesty, probity and ood demeanor- or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the 'ourt. Aurthermore e!en thou h he has a !ery important personal matter to attend with, he could ha!e politely e.plained his predicament to the in!esti atin commissioner and as&ed permission to lea!e immediately. Ruling of the Su re!e Court: Atty. ?obert (. 1edel is found uilty of ross misconduct. Thus, he was suspended for one year from the practice of law.