LETICIA GONZALES vs ATTY.

MARCELINO CABUCANA
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of Gonzales, they harassed Gonzales
and askedher to execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her complaint, Gonzales
thereafter filedagainst the Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave threats, grave
oral defamation, simolecoercion and unjust vexation; where respondents law firm was
still representing Gonzales,herein respondent represented the Gatchecos in the cases
filed by Gonzales against the said sps.,respondent should be disbarred from the
practice of law since respondents acceptance of thecases of the Gatchecos violates
the lawyer client relationship between complainant andrespondents law firm and
renders respondent liable under CPR particularly Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, 15.03,
21.02 and 21.02. Respondent alleged that he never appeared and represented of such
case since it was his brother, Atty. Edmar Cabucana who appeared and
representedGonzales in said case. He admitted that he is representing Sheriff Gatcheco
and his wife in thecases filed against them bur claimed that his appearance is pro bono
and that the sps pleadedwith him as no other counsel was willing to take their case.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD:
Respondent is guilty violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. It is well-settled
thatlawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except by written consent of
allconcerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is
one of trust andconfidence of the highest degree. Lawyers are expected not only to
keep inviolate the clientsconfidence but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then canlitigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramountimportance in the administration of justice. The
proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where
the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action.Respondents allegation that it was his brother who represented Gonzales, thus
there could be noconflict of interest is no merit. As respondent admitted, it was their law
firm which representedGonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the rule against
representing conflicting interestapplies.The court consider however as mitigating
circumstances the fact that he is representing theGatcheco sps pro bono and that it was
his firm and not respondent personally which handled thecivil case of Gonzales. And it
was observed that there was no malice and bad faith inrespondents acceptance of the
Gatchecos cases as shown by the move of complainant towithdraw the case. Thus, for
violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR and taking considerationof mitigating
circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount of P 2,000 with stern warningthat a
commission of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.


NESTOR PEREZ vs ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE
Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001,
severalsuspects for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and
Diego Avilawere apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent went
to the unicipal bldg.of Calabanga where the accused were being detained and made
representations that he couldsecure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial
confessions; that unknown to the twoaccused, respondent was representing the heirs of
the murder victim; The extrajudicialconfessions included herein the complainant as the
mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial
confession,he conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and only after he was
convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion did he assist the accused in executing the
extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD:
Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three
years from the practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer
wereretained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De
la Torre wasrepresenting the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of
the victims family.Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties
having conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing
conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy andgood taste. In course of a
lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connectedwith the clients
case, including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers notonly to
keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of
improprietyand double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of
double-dealing and infidelity to hisclients. What is unsetting is that respondent assisted
in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their
participation in various serious criminal offensesknowing fully well that he was retained
previously by the heirs of one of the victims.Respondent, who presumably knows the
intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to
accuseds choice of counsel.



HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO FALAME and
JERRYFALAME, vs. ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first
civilcase. As defense counsel in the first civil case, respondent advocated the stance
that Lydiosolely owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case
involving the sameproperty, respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has
pursued the inconsistentposition that Raleigh owned the same property in common with
Lydio, with complainants, whoinherited the property, committing acts which debase
respondent's rights as a co-owner.
ISSUEWhether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interests between
his clients.RULING:Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty.
A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflictswith that of his
present or former client as provided in
Rule 15.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility
. The rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or thelawyer has
acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.Furthermore,
the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer
torepresent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The
client'sconfidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of
professional employmentor even death.

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan

PCGG want to build up their case against Eduardo Coujuanco for the anomalies in the
COCO LEVY FUNDS. PCGG wants petitioners divulge that Cojuangco indeed was a
client of their firm, as well as other information regarding Cojuangco.

Issue: Can the PCGG compel petitioners to divulge its clients name?

Held: NO.

As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery. The
general is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or
identity of his client.

1) the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to
be protected is flesh and blood.
2) the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client.
3) the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.

Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary. A party suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent
is. He cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces.

Except:
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients
name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers
advice.
2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged.
3) Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client unless, by
revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form
the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the clients name is
privileged.
That client identity is privileged in those instances where a strong probability exists that
the disclosure of the client's identity would implicate the client in the very criminal
activity for which the lawyers legal advice was obtained.

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO
S.HERNANDEZ, JR. vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO
Facts: Sometime in 1961, complainants husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano
S.Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husbands numerous creditors demanded
payments of hisloans. Fearful that the various mortgage contracts involving her
properties will be foreclosed andaware of impending suits for sums of money against
her, complainant engaged the legal servicesof ATTY. JOSE C. GO, herein
respondent.Atty. Go advised her to give him her land titles so he could sell them to
enable her to pay her creditors. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell the
lots and from the proceeds payher creditors. Complainant also owned lots located in
Zamboanga City, which were mortgaged toher creditors. When the mortgages fell due,
respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convincedher to execute deeds of sale
involving those lots in his favor. As a result, respondent became theregistered owner of
all the lots belonging to complainant.Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that
respondent did not sell her lots as agreedupon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his
own funds and had her land titles registered in hisname, depriving her of her real
properties worth millions.n Respondents contention: He averred that he sold, in good
faith, complainants lots to various buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration.
On several occasions, he extendedfinancial assistance to complainant and even invited
her to live with his family. His children usedto call her "Lola" due to her frequent visits to
his residence. He prayed that the complaint bedismissed for failure to state a cause of
action.n IBP recommended 6 months suspension from practice of law. IBP Board of
Governorsmodified the penalty to 3 years.Issue: WON respondent violated canon 16
and canon 17, CPR
SC: guilty of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice of law.
His acts of acquiring for himself complainants lots entrusted to him are, by any
standard,acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty,willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in
judgment- The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and
confidence inherein respondent, that when she engaged his services, she entrusted to
him her land titles andallowed him to sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof
would be used to pay her creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust and
confidence when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his
own money to pay her obligations; respondent isduty-bound to render a detailed report
to the complainant on how much he sold the latters lotsand the amounts paid to her
creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers,complainant could have
earned more. Records show that she did not receive any amount fromrespondent.
Clearly, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his duty ascomplainants
counsel- Considering the depravity of respondents offense, we find the penalty
recommended bythe IBP
too light
. JIt bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his clients financial plight to
acquirethe latters properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the
public in thefidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession

LOURDES R. BUSIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT,
respondent.

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by
misappropriating the sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to
respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainants husband, while P2,000.00
represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond
in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent did not appear in the
administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the amount,
complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Held: DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the
money of his clients without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of
a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to
them

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without
their consent , and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of
P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly,
guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the
confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an
unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been
demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a
bar to a criminal prosecution.

ANGALAN vs. ATTY. DELANTE
This is a complaint filed by maria, nena, dionicio, Magdalena, francisca, rosario and
Josefina(Angalan) against Atty. Leonido Delante. These are the heirs of Angalan
Samal( angalan) andSanaan Samal( Sanaan).1971 Angalan and complainants
borrowed 15k fr. Navarro Eustaquio and Arabella, to secure theloan they mortgaged
8.102 ha of 9.102 ha property and surrendered to the sps. Eustaquio byaffixing their
thumb marks on the doc.When complainants tried to pay sps. Eustaquio refused and
learned that it was deed of absolutesale.Complainants engaged the services of
respondent for the purpose of recovering their property. Areceipt evidencing payment
was issued by the complainants for the full payment of his professional fees was also
given. Respondent then filed a complaint with the court of firstinstance (CFI) now RTC.
1977 Complainants and eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement:a) Complainants
offered the sum of 30k as repurchase which defendant accept b) Upon signing plaintiff
shall pay 15k the deed of reconveyance shall be executed by thedefendantC.)While
balance not paid defendants continue to possess and if necessary to gather the
produceof the propertyComplainants didnt have the 30k repurchase price. Respondent
advanced the 30k in returncomplainants allowed respondent to possess the property
until he is paid. When complainantstried to repay respondent refused.In 1977 a former
Filipino client now a permanent resident in NYork was looking for a propertyand he was
referred to defendant eustaquio and decided to buy and left a money and to buy thesaid
property under defendants name with the understanding to turn over as soon as his
familyshall have returned to d country. Complainants filed a complaint but parties failed
to appear andasked to submit their position papers.Respondent stated that angalan and
capul went to his office to seek advice about borrowing money. His client from NY
bought the property from the sps.Eustaquio and the complainantsexecuted a motion to
withdraw the complaint for the disbarment and an affidavit of desistance.
WON the respondent committed grave violation of the CPR when he bought the
property fromhis client without their knowledge and against their will?
HELD: Angalan and complainants went to respondents office not to seek advice about
borrowing money but to engage his services for the purpose of recovering the property
whererespondent filed a complaint with the CFI, and when they issued a receipt and a
letter address to barrio captain stating that he is the lawyer.Respondents allege that his
client fr. NY bought the property from the sps. Eustaquio. The courtwas not impressed
first the complainants and Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement thatwould
repurchase the property. And second a letter to the barrio capt. Stated that
thecomplainants repurchased the property through him. Respondent story is
unbelievable for he didnot give detail or proof the name of the allege client, the old
passport showing immigrationstamps.Respondent violated canon 16 and 17. 16 states
that a lawyer shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their
possession. He should have returned the property tocomplainants. Instead he
transferred the title to his name refused to return and referred thecomplainants charges
as malicious and untruthful.17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him, complainantsallege that they are illiterate sps. Eustaquio
took advantage of them, instead of protecting theinterest of the complainants he took
advantage of them too. C17 constitutes gross misconduct. A person taking 8.102ha to
his illiterate clients who is incapable of telling truth is unfit to be alawyer. It is destructive
of the confidence if the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of thelegal profession.

IN RE: Suspension From The Practice Of Law In The Territory Of Guam Of Atty.
Leon G. MaqueraB.M. No. 793July 30, 2004Facts:In a Letter dated August 20, 1996
Facts:In a Letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court
of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera(Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam.
He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired
hisclient's property as payment for his legal services, then sold it and as a consequence
obtained an unreasonably high fee for handlinghis client's case.Under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney,
is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign
court's action is by reason of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyer's oath.The case
was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation
report and recommendation.In its decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated that
Maquera was the counsel of a certain Castro. Benavente the creditor Castro,obtained a
judgement against Castro, thus Castro;s property was to be sold at a public auction in
satisfaction of his obligation toBenavente. However, Castro retains the right of
redemption.In consideration of Maqueras legal services, Castro entered into an oral
agreement with Maquera and assigned his right of redemption in favor of the latter. On
January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castro's right of redemption by paying Benavente
US$525.00 in satisfaction of the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the
property transferred in his name.And after, sold the property to C.S. Chang and C.C.
Chang for Three Hundred Twenty Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$320,000.00).The Guam
Bar Ethics Committee filed a Petition in the Superior Court of Guam praying that
Maquera be sanctioned for violations of Rules 1.5 and 1.8(a) of the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in Guam. In its Petition, theCommittee
claimed that Maquera obtained an unreasonably high fee for his services. The
Committee further alleged that Maquerahimself admitted his failure to comply with the
requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer shall not enter into
abusiness transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to
a client unless the transaction and the termsgoverning the lawyer's acquisition of such
interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are fully disclosed to, and understood
by the client and reduced in writing.On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of
Guam, the IBP concluded that although the said court found Maqueraliable for
misconduct, "there is no evidence to establish that Maquera committed a breach of
ethics in the Philippines."However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for
his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is,
inturn, a ground for removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of theRevised Rules of Court.Issue:Whether or
not Maquera, who was suspended from the practice of law in Guam, be suspended as
member of the PhilippineBar on the same ground of his suspension in Guam.Ruling:The
power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions committed in a
foreign jurisdiction is found inSection 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which states:Section
27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in suchoffice,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of theoath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party toa case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court
or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted
as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.The judgment, resolution or order of
the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for
disbarment or suspension In the case at bar such transaction made by Maquera falls
squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 prohibits the lawyer's acquisition by
assignment of the client's property which is the subject of the litigation handled by the
lawyer. Under Article 1492, the prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. This is
founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the
expense of his client. Such acts are violative of a lawyer's sworn duty to act with fidelity
toward his clients. They are also violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically, Canon 17 which states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall bemindful the trust and confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01 which
prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the Philippine Bar but isalso a continuing requirement to maintain one's good's
standing in the legal profession.The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to
adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the charges of unethical behavior in Guam
against him, as it is not certain that he did receive the Notice of Hearing earlier sent by
the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain Maquera's
current and correct address in Guam in order that another notice, this timespecifically
informing him of the charges against him and requiring him to explain why he should not
be suspended or disbarred onthose grounds (through this Resolution), may be sent to
him.Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera should be suspended
from the practice of law for non-payment of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to
the present. Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court, non-payment
of membership dues for six (6) months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
IBP, and default in such payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the name
of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

VICTORIA LEGARDA vs. CA, NEW CATHAY HOUSE, INC.
Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land and the improvements thereon. Petitioner
enteredinto 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 thesame despite demands of the respondent.
Respondent suffered damages due to the delay in therenovation 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. Buther
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:
WON the petitioner can recover his property WON the counsel is negligent in
handlingthe case of her client
HELD:
The Court finds that the negligence of the counsel in this case appears to be so gross
andinexcusable. 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 hereceived a copy of adverse judgment of appellate court, he did
not do anything to save thesituation or inform his client of the judgment. He allowed the
judgment to lapse and becomefinal. Such reckless and gross negligence should not be
allowed to bind the petitioner. Petitioner was thereby effectively deprived of her day in
court.Because of the gross negligence of the counsel for the petitioner, she lost the
case as well as thetitle and ownership of the property, which is worth millions. The mere
lessee then now becamethe owner of the property. The Court cannot allow such a
grave injustice to prevail. It cannottolerate such unjust enrichment of the respondent at
the expense of the petitioner.As member of the Phil Bar he owes complete fidelity to the
cause of his client. He should giveadequate attention, care and time to his cases. This
is the reason why a practicing lawyer shouldaccept only so many cases he can afford to
handle. And once he agrees to handle a case, heshould undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true tohis oath as a
lawyer.In this case, the Sheriffs Cert of Sale and the subsequent final deed of sale
covering the same property are null and void. Respondent is directed to reconvey said
property to the petitioner andthe register of Deeds is ordered to cancel the registration
of the said property in the name of respondent and issue a new one in the name of the
petitioner. The said counsel for petitioner isrequired to show cause w/in ten days from
notice why he should not be held administrativelyliable for his acts and omissions

ENDAYA v OCA
Facts:

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An
answer was prepared by a Mr.Ramirez for the spouses.

At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel.
Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to
handle the case.

At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer.
Motion was denied.

The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 daysafter the submission of the last paper or upon expiration of
the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered onthe case.

Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.

Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who
filed the case were not reallparties-in-interest.

The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the
MTC decision. Spouseswere ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount
for rentals.

Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive
anything. Upon checking with theclerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the
decision (liar!).

Hence this administrative complaint.Issue:

W/N Oca committed professional misconductHeld:

Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.

Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Oca:
o
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC
because it would justbe a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just
reiterated what he put in his complaint.
o
SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything.
Oca explained thathe failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it
was no longer necessary.
o
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.

Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses
thereafter.

The facts show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance
the cause of his client. Forintentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the
court, respondent practically closed the door to thepossibility of putting up a fair fight for
his client.

Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel
of record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated.

Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of
respect for the courts and abrazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.

Bakit hindi disbarred?
o
Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in
fact it wasprepared by a lawyer
o
Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never
gave anything toOca to support their claim.
o
The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.

CARLITO P. CARANDANG,
Complainant,vs.
ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA,
Respondent.This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S.
Obmina. Atty.Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he filed.
Carandang broughtsuit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform Carandang of the adverse
decision in said caseand for failure to appeal the decision. The Commission on Bar
Discipline, issued anOrder directing respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina to submit his
Answer. However,what the Commission received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty.
Ma. CarmencitaC. Obmina-Muaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further
alleged that her father is already a permanent resident of the United States of America
since March 2001 andhad already retired from the practice of law.On the scheduled
Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa to produceand present
before the Court the alleged withdrawal of appearance filed by her father and proof that
her father is now really a permanent resident of the United States of America.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with competence
anddiligence as pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics and to inform
hisclient as to the stus of his case pursuant to Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.Ruling:There is
nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in anymanner
about the decision. Blame should not be attributed solely to the respondentbecause it
was observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure tomaintain
contact with Atty. Obmina. The Supreme Court held that "
clients should maintain contact with their counsel from time to time and inform
themselves of theprogress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care which
an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his business
(Leonardo vs. S.T. Best, Inc.,). Nonetheless,the Court underscored the duty of
respondent to notify his client as to what happened tohis case.However, the respondent
who has in his possession the complete files and address of the complainant, should
have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to whathappened to his case.
Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client,respondent is duty bound to
notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics. That as a
result of the respondents failure to notify thecomplainant, the latter lost the case
leading to his eviction.The Court ordered that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended
from the practice of lawfor a period of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is
reportedly in the UnitedStates of America and accordingly retired from the practice of
law, the Commissionresolved not to close its eyes on the negligence that respondent
has committed while inthe active practice.