Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
HELD:
YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC
The lawyers continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the
client agrees with the amount of attorneys fees to e charged. In case of
disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his
possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action with the
proper court to fix the fees
Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorneys fees, after
receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful acts , must observe fairness.
2. ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO
FACTS:
Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. Echavia was driving a
Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-in-law
Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela.
Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage suit
against Echavia. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10,000 as attorneys
fees and P2,000 as filing fee.
Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo. She alleged that
Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to Artezuela, atty.
did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty. withdrew his services
without obtaining Artezuelas consent. Artezuela also alleged that Atty. Maderazo
engaged in activities inimical to her interests. She says that while acting as her
counsel, Atty. Maderazo prepared Echavias answer. Atty. Maderazo claims that the
document of Echavia was not prepared by him. According to him, the answer by
Echavia was only printed in his office.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests.
HELD:
Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Suspension of 6 months.
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one
party need not also be the counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not
have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. It is enough that the
counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of another
party who is claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of the original
client.
Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client,
sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from representing
conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties.
3. PNB v ATTY CEDO
FACTS:
PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that
states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving govt. service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in said
service. Cedo was the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset management
Group of PNB.
During Cedos stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale
of steel sheets to Ms. Ong and 2.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses
Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after leaving the bank
appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a civil
action, the Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &
Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner. Cedo claims that he did not
participate in the litigation of Ms. Ongs case. He also claims that even if it was his
law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being handled by Atty. Ferrer.
ISSUE: W/N violated Rule 6.02.
HELD:
Cedo violated Rule 6.02.
In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty.
and the client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in
advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the
complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against his
former client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact
that their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as
counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express
consent of all the parties concerned after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
4. JUNIO v GRUPO
FACTS:
Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the
redemption of a land belonging to her parents. She gave P25,000 to be used in
the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property and has continuously
refused to refund the money given.
Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct
Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore,
and that since Junio knew that the mortgage has already expired, she knew that it
was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Atty. Grupo then borrowed
some of the money for himself to help defray his childrens educational expenses.
(personal request evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio Atty. Grupo
contends that their families were really very close and intimate with each other
Junios sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo)
Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further
contends that he did not ask for any fee, not even charity. He claims that his
services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he claims that he is willing to pay,
though)
IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing
money from their clients unless the clients interests are protected by the nature
of the case or by independent advice and suspended him
5. REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the
law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly
known as ACCRA)
ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing
business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or
simply as stockholders
As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the
organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. 0033. In
keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees- stockholders.
Anong kalokohan yan?
o Civil Case No. 0033 RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al., for the recovery of illgotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain corporations
PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3rd amended complaint, which excluded
Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco
was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals.
The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they
should also be removed the way that Roco was.
PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the
identity of their clients
During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for