Canon 10

Maligaya vs doronilla
Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate General's Service is
before us on a charge of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in
open court during a hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778. 1
Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by complainant
Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, against several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as
counsel. At one point during the February 19, 2002 hearing of the case, Atty.
Doronilla said:
And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he
[complainant Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We
had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him, he will
also withdraw all the cases. So, with that understanding, he even
retired and he is now receiving pension.2 (emphasis supplied)
On April 29, 2002, Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. 4 The
complaint, which charged Atty. Doronilla with "misleading the court through
misrepresentation of facts resulting [in] obstruction of justice,
Atty. Doronilla, who took up the larger part of two hearings to present
evidence and explain his side, admitted several times that there was, in fact,
no such agreement.8 Later he explained in his memorandum that his main
concern was "to settle the case amicably among comrades in arms without
going to trial"9 and insisted that there was no proof of his having violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath. 10 He pointed out, in
addition, that his false statement (or, as he put it, his "alleged acts of
falsity") had no effect on the continuance of the case and therefore caused
no actual prejudice to complainant.11

ISSUE: won atty. Doronilla is guilty for uttering a false statement in an open
court thus a violation thereof of the Canon 10?

Held: There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as

officers of the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at
all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.15 The common
caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the truth
and to act honestly should not become a common reality.16 To this end,
Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility state:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to
withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of
ethical conduct. Not only that, he violated the lawyer's oath to "do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court," of which Canon 10 and
Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed on every lawyer's duty to
"never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law."17
Atty. Doronilla's unethical conduct was compounded, moreover, by his
obstinate refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of what he had done. From
the very beginning of this administrative case, Atty. Doronilla maintained the
untenable position that he had done nothing wrong in the hearing of Civil
Case No. Q-99-38778. He persisted in doing so even after having admitted
that he had, in that hearing, spoken of an agreement that did not in truth
exist. Rather than express remorse for that regrettable incident, Atty.
Doronilla resorted to an ill-conceived attempt to evade responsibility,
professing that the falsehood had not been meant for the information of
Judge Daway but only as "a sort of question" to complainant regarding a
"pending proposal" to settle the case.18
Besides, in the light of his avowal that his only aim was "to settle the case
amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial," 21perhaps it is not
unreasonable to assume that what he really meant to say was that he had
intended the misrepresentation as a gambit to get the proposed agreement
on the table, as it were.

There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among disputants

that, in any way, makes it necessary under any circumstances for counsel to
state as a fact that which is not true.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for TWO MONTHS.He is WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar misconduct shall be dealt with more seA.C. No. 1900
June 13, 2012
RODRIGO
A.
vs.
ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, Respondent.

MOLINA, Complainant,

This is a case wherein Atty. Magat was the counsel of the complainant herein
which is Rodrigo Molina. Magat filed a motion to quash stating that there is
double jeopardy stating that there is already as similar case for slight
physical injuries that were filed by certain Molina. The case originally filed
was Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority and Breach of the Peace
and Resisting Arrest against one Pascual de Leon (de Leon).
Magat was under suspension when he appeared in court. He explained that
his appearance in the December 21, 1977 hearing was to inform the court
that the accused was sick and to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against the accused. In the January 9, 1978 hearing, he appeared because
the accused had no money and pleaded that his testimony be finished. Atty.
Magat begged for the indulgence of the court and conveyed his repentance
and apology and promised that the same would not happen again.
ISSUE:WON magat was guilty for misrepresenting the court of the
charges?
HELD: yes.
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IBP that there was
a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he
filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double
jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any false and untruthful statements
in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for slight
physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure
a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
On the issue when he appeared in court while he is suspension, the court
held that: if Atty. Magat was truly moved by altruistic intentions when he
appeared before the trial court despite having been suspended, he could
have informed the Presiding Judge of his plight and explained why the party
he was representing could not attend. On the contrary, Atty. Magat kept his
silence and proceeded to represent his client as counsel.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ceferino R. Magat is hereby ordered
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING
that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be
dealt with more severely.
JUDGE ALDEN
CERVANTES,

V.
Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. JUDE JOSUE L. SABIO,

Respondent
.

A.C. No. 7828

Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CORONA,*
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
August 11, 2008

x-----------------------------------------------Petitioner was a judge in laguna. Respondent file a motion for inhibition

stating that Extra ordinary development gave him a house and lot putting
into serious doubts his impartiality, independence and integrity.

Respondent said that the judge would ask for a consideration of 500 php for
every decision in favor EDC.
A case was then filed in the court of administrator.but it was dismiss
for the lack of merit. the complaint being unsubstantiated and motivated by
plain unfounded suspicion, and for having been filed after the effectivity of
his optional retirement
Issue:
Whether
.
.
.
the
complaint
filed
by respondent against the complainant before the
Office of the Court Administrator in Admin Matter
OCA IPI No. 06-1842-MTJ was malicious, false and
untruthful.
(2)

If in the affirmative, whether . . . respondent

is
guilty
under
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:YES. The court said the respondents complaint was false and
untruthful due to insufficiency and failure on the part of respondent
to prove his allegations against complainant.
On the second issue, the IBP found that by filing the groundless bribery
charge against complainant, respondent violated the proscription of the Code
of Professional Responsibility against wittingly or willingly promot[ing] or
su[ing] any groundless suit including baseless administrative complaints
against judges and other court officers and employees.
The Investigating Commissioner thus concluded that
while the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the
allegations in respondents affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant were false, the evidence nonetheless show[s] that
respondent had knowingly and maliciously instituted a
groundless suit, based simply on his unfounded suspicions
against complainant;[7] (Underscoring supplied)

and that he violated Canons 10, [8] 11,[9] & 12[10] and Rule 11.04[11] of the
Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office.

CANON 11
A.C. No. 7474, September 09, 2014
PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY,Complainant, v. ATTY. JUAN S.
DEALCA, Respondent.

Respondent is the counsel of one of the defendant in a criminal case. The

case was raffled to the sala of the Judge but [c]onsidering the adverse
incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned,
where he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the
latter does not also hear cases handled by the undersigned.2cralawred
judge Madrid filed a letter complaint 4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing
Atty. Dealcas unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving
for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse
incidents between them.
Comment Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the
February 14, 2007 order unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the
accused of the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial
trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift
and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused; and that it
should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law.
Issues
(1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints

against judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility?
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of
Judge Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795?

HELD:
Atty.
Dealca
must
guard
his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits

I
against

The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced
otherwise. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealcas complaint against Judge
Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace
of idealism or altruism in the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty.
Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for
harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed
out,16 his bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even his
colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings
being adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was
thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor
harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate legal
remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should
be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
them.17cralawred
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyers
Oath not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also
been expressly embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
thuswise:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that
the orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as
he must resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his clients
propensities to litigate,20 so must he equally guard himself against his own
impulses of initiating unfounded suits. While it is the Courts duty to

investigate and uncover the truth behind charges against judges and
lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are
intended to vex and harass them, among other things. 21cralawred
Atty.
Dealca
violated
Canon
11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility

and

Rule

11.04

Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have in good grace
inhibited himself upon his motion to inhibit in order to preserve confidence
in the impartiality of the judiciary.31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag
has recommended that Atty. Dealca be sanctioned for filing the motion to
inhibit considering that the motion, being purely based on his personal
whims, was bereft of factual and legal bases.32cralawred
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar
duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily,
their membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon
them.33cralawred
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
pertinently
state:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.
x

Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity
and authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair
administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the
stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting
on a very shaky foundation.34cralawred

Canon 16

A.C. No. 8000, August 05, 2014

CHAMELYN
A.
RIVERA, Respondent.

AGOT, Complainant, v. ATTY.

LUIS

P.

filed by complainant Chamelyn A. Agot (complainant) against respondent

Atty. Luis P. Rivera (respondent), charging him of violating the Code of
Professional
Responsibility
(CPR)
and
the
lawyers
oath
for
misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return her money
despite several demands.
Complainant engaged the services in processing her visa to the US and thus
the complainant gave respondent the amount of 350k and another 350k and
that the complainant will be held liable if the complainant will fail to come up
with the interview. The complainant was not scheduled for interview. The
respondent also said that he would return the downpayment that his client
gave.
issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violating the CPR.
HELD: As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a
high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity,
and fair dealing.14 In this regard, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR,
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
In the instant case, respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration
lawyer, which resulted to complainant seeking his assistance to facilitate the
issuance of her US visa and paying him the amount of P350,000.00 as
downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however, respondent has no
specialization in immigration law but merely had a contact allegedly with
Pineda, a purported US consul, who supposedly processes US visa
applications for him. However, respondent failed to prove Pinedas identity

considering that the photographs and e-mails he submitted were all selfserving and thus, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner,
bereft of any probative value and consequently cannot be given any
credence. Undoubtedly, respondents deception is not only unacceptable,
disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it reveals a basic moral
flaw
that
makes
him
unfit
to
practice
law.15cralawred
Corollary to such deception, respondent likewise failed to perform his
obligations under the Contract, which is to facilitate and secure the issuance
of a US visa in favor of complainant. This constitutes a flagrant violation of
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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 therewith shall render him liable.
Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of
his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to
attend to such clients cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon
him.16 Therefore, a lawyers neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his
client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
administratively
liable,17 as
in
this
case.
Furthermore, respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the
CPR when he failed to refund the amount of P350,000.00 that complainant
paid
him, viz.:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received
for
or
from
the
client.
x

Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. x x x.

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. 18 The highly fiduciary
nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for
the money or property collected or received for or from his client. 19Thus, a
lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of
his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as
of professional ethics.20cralawred
A.C. No. 2125 April 3, 1995
ENRIQUE
M.
vs.
ATTY. LEOPOLDO T. MAGLAYA, respondent.

REYES, complainant,

Complainant endorsed to the respondent all the pertinent data in the

anomalous and fraudulent actuations and was being defrauded in
the amount of 31863. He did gave the respondent the amount of
1500.sooner, he was unable to locate the defendant and asked for
the return of the said money. Respondent failed to return the
documents and also the money.
Respondent replied that all the documents were photocopied and all
the money were used up in the filling of the criminal case against
offemaria.
Won the respondent is guilty of violating the CPR?
HELD; YES.
By his unexplained failure to return the amount of P1,500.00 demanded by
complainant-client receipt of which he had acknowledged and which he had
agreed to return at the earliest possible opportunity, he failed to live up to
his duties as a lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that "a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand . . . .

His inexcusable act of withholding money belonging to his client warrants the
imposition of disciplinary sanction.
This Court also finds that respondent has not exercised the diligence
required of lawyers in the handling of their clients' cases. He failed to act
upon complainant's case for a period of more than three (3) months from
the time the complete file of complainant against Angelica Offemaria was
endorsed to him by Atty. Abando of the PC-CIS. To make matters worse,
respondent failed to respond to complainant's inquiries regarding the status
of his case, a duty which was incumbent upon him.
By his unexplained failure to return the amount of P1,500.00 demanded by
complainant-client receipt of which he had acknowledged and which he had
agreed to return at the earliest possible opportunity, he failed to live up to
his duties as a lawyer. He has in particular disregarded Canon 16, Rule 16.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that "a lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand . . . .
His inexcusable act of withholding money belonging to his client warrants the
imposition of disciplinary sanction.
This Court also finds that respondent has not exercised the diligence
required of lawyers in the handling of their clients' cases. He failed to act
upon complainant's case for a period of more than three (3) months from
the time the complete file of complainant against Angelica Offemaria was
endorsed to him by Atty. Abando of the PC-CIS. To make matters worse,
respondent failed to respond to complainant's inquiries regarding the status
of his case, a duty which was incumbent upon him.
A.C. No. 6051

April 2, 2007

CELIA
ARROYO-POSIDIO,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Respondent.
Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent in Special
Proceeding No. C-525, entitled "Testate Estate of deceased Nicolasa S. de
Guzman Arroyo," filed before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City.
Complainant paid respondent legal fees in the amount of P20,000.00.

However, on June 6, 1990, respondent withdrew his appearance as counsel

in the said case, thus complainant engaged the services of another lawyer.
Sometime in August 1996, respondent contacted complainant and showed
her documents consisting of tax declarations of properties purportedly
forming part of the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman-Arroyo, but were not
included in the Inventory of Properties for distribution in Special Proceeding
No. C-525. He convinced complainant to file another case to recover her
share in the alleged undeclared properties and demanded P100,000.00 as
legal fees therefor. After several months, however, respondent failed to
institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case and
asked for the return of the P100,000.00, but respondent refused despite
repeated demands.
HELD:
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires the
lawyer to account for all money or property collected or received for or from
his client. Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose,
such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment, consummate a
settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should,
upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it, immediately
return the money to his client.15
In the instant case, respondent received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal
fees for filing additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman
Arroyo. However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that
he immediately return the amount to complainant upon demand therefor.
Having received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent
was unjustified in keeping complainants money. His obligation was to
immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite
complainants repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where he
pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with
good fidelity to his clients.
A lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain, he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.16 A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted

to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and

good faith on his part is exacted.17 In Barnachea v. Quioch
he lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demand
gave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money
in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer
[of] funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of
professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession.19
the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondents
infractions. Time and again, we have held that the act of a lawyer in issuing
a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes willful
dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in
law and lawyers.22Such conduct indicates the respondents unfitness for the
trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence
and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. 23

[A.C. No. 6297. July 13, 2004]

DOLORES
D.
PARIAS, complainant, vs.
PAGUINTO, respondent.

ATTY.

OSCAR

P.

A lawyer has the duty to give adequate attention and time to

every case he accepts. A lawyer impliedly warrants that he
possesses the necessary diligence, learning and skill to
handle each case. He should exert his best judgment and
exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the
pursuit or defense of his clients cause.
Paronas engaged in the services of the paguinto for the
annulment case.25k was given as acceptance fee,2k for filling
and other incidental expenses,

A partial payment of 10k was given to the respondent. The

respondent informed her of the date of the hearing. Later on,
the court clerk informed the complainant that the said
respondent did not filed any case relating to the complainants
cause. So complainant demanded payment.
HELDL
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code)
provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected for or
from the client. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorneyclient relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause.
[7]
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but
not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client
on demand.[8] Paguinto returned the money only after Parias filed this
administrative case for disbarment.
Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his
client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied
representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and
ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment
in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise
reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the
case.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his

case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake
the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is
not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept
only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his
clients interests will suffer. It is not enough that a lawyer
possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He
must also give adequate attention to his legal work.
[9]

Rule 18.01 of the Code is clear. A lawyer shall not undertake a

legal service that he is not qualified to render. Rule 18.02 of
the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation. He has the duty to
prepare for trial with diligence and deliberate speed. Rule
18.03 of the Code also provides that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
shall render him liable
EN BANC
A.C. No. 7676, June 10, 2014
AMADO T. DIZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. NORLITA DE
TAZA, Respondent.
DECISION