Teodoro v. Gonzales Facts: Anastacio Teodoro filed a complaint against Gonzales for allegedly intentionally committing forum shopping.

Gonzales is the counsel of Araceli in two civil cases filed against Anastacio. The first involved the settlement of the estate of Manuela Teodoro and while the case was pending, Gonzales assisted in filing the subsequent case for Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Damages without indicating the special proceeding earlier filed. According to Anastacio, this was a deliberate act of forum shopping made by Gonzales. Initially, the commissioner found that Gonzales was indeed guilty of forum shopping for the ruling in either case would result in res judicata over the other and that he instituted the subsequent case without indicating the pending case. The commissioner ruled that Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the code for he disregarded the SC circular prohibiting forum shopping. Hence, suspending him for 1 month. However, the board of Governors of the IBP reversed the Commissioners recommendation and dismissed the case. Issue: Whether Gonzales committed forum shopping and thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility? Held: Yes. The court held that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation. The Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since the practice clogs the Court dockets and can lead to conflicting rulings. Willful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court. In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. Thus, the court subjected Atty. Gonzales to censure. Notes: Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Censure- the penalty usually imposed for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature

Ylaya v. Gacott Facts: Ylaya filed a complaint against Gacott for deceiving her into signing a preparatory Deed of Sale which Gacott converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives. Ylaya alleged that she is the owner of the land and that it was subject to expropriation proceeding and was valued by the court at 6M for just compensation. Gacott represented Ylaya in the case as Intervenor for being the new owners as it was previously owned by Cirilo Arellano. Ylaya alleged that Gacott convinced her to sign to sign the preparatory deed of sale supposedly in favor of the City Government and left the name of the buyer and amount of consideration blank. Then Gacott fraudulently converted the document into a Deed of Absolute Sale which sold the property Reynold and Sylvia So only for 200k (sum was never delivered to Ylaya). It was also Gaccot who notarized the document even though Sylvia is his mothers sister. Gacott denied the accusations and said that the sale of Ylaya was voluntary. Further, Ylayas husband and Reynold were co-owners of the land and that the husband sold his share to Reynold. IBP found that Gacott was guilty for violating Canon 1, rule 1.01, Canon 16 of the Code and the rules on Notarial Practice. IBP imposed a 2 year suspension against Gacott. Issue: Whether the findings of the IBP were proper? Held: Yes but with modifications. SC ruled that the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of canon 15, Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of canon 18 of the code and is hereby suspended for a period of 1 year. SC mentioned that respondent is liable under rule 15.03 of canon 15 for representing conflicting interests without the written consent of all concerned parties specially the complainant.

complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the TCTs, the court still held the respondent liable, as the TCTs were entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his clients properties that were in his custody.

Moreover, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 requires that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. What amounts to carelessness or negligence in a lawyers discharge of his duty to his client is incapable of an exact formulation, but the Court has consistently held that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. In Canoy v. Ortiz, the court held that a lawyers failure to file a position paper was per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Similar to Canoy, the respondent clearly failed in his duty to his client when, without any explanation, he failed to file the Motion for Leave to Intervene on behalf of the spouses Ylaya. Notes: CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS. Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. 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.

Further, the respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Allowing a party to take the original TCTs of properties owned by another an act that could result in damage should merit a finding of legal malpractice. While it was his legal staff who allowed the