Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18

April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
CANON 16. the same was almost totally destroyed by fire while it
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEY was parked in his residence although he cannot provide
AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY any explanation as to the circumstances behind the
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. destruction.
A Lawyer is a trustee of clients money and
properties On the basis of the foregoing premises, the IBP-CBD
The money collected by an attorney for his thus recommended that Atty. Frial to be suspended from
client, belongs to his client. Consequently, the lawyer is the practice of law for one (1) year.
under the obligation to hold in trust all money and Issue: Whether or not Atty. Frial is guilty for violating
properties of his client that may come into his his Lawyers Oath which would warrant his disbarment
possession. The money and properties collected by a from the Practice of Law.
lawyer in pursuant of a judgment in favor of his client
are held in trust for the client. Ruling: NO
The purpose of a Writ of Attachment is to prevent the
RULE 16.01 defendant from disposing of the attached property, thus
A LAWYER SHALL ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE MONEY securing the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
OR PROPERTY COLLECTED OR RECEIVED FOR OR recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. When the
FROM THE CLIENT. objects of the attachment are destroyed, then the
The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attached properties would necessarily be of no value and
attorney and client requires that the lawyer should useless.
promptly account for all the funds received or held by
him for the clients benefits by keeping and maintaining The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for
adequate records of the clients money or properties in his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes
his custody. advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client. Money of the client or collected for the client or
other trust property coming into the possession of the
ATTY. RICARDO M. SALOMON, JR., Complainant,
lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly
versus ATTY. JOSELITO C. FRIAL, Respondent.
and should not under any circumstances be commingled
A.C. No. 7820 September 12, 2008
with his own or be used by him. A lawyer is first and
foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected
Facts: The disbarment complaint has its beginning in
to respect the courts order and processes. Atty. Frial
the case, Lucy Lo v. Ricardo Salomon, complainant,
miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He
before the RTC in Manila, in which a writ of preliminary
trifled with the writ of attachment the court issued.
attachment was issued in favor of Lucy Lo, Atty. Frials
client, over two (2) cars of a black 1995 Volvo and a
Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of
green 1993 Nissan Sentra.
taking good care of the attached cars. He also allowed
the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no
According to Atty. Salomon, the attaching sheriff of
business using it. He did not inform the court or at least
Manila, instead of depositing the attached cars in the
the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is
court premises, turned them over to Atty. Frial, Los
worse is that he took custody of them without so much
counsel. Atty. Salomon claimed that on several
as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority.
occasions, the Nissan Sentra was spotted being used by
However, Disbarment should not be decreed where a
unauthorized individuals. As to the Volvo, Atty. Salomon
lesser punishment would accomplish the end desire thus
averred that during mediation, Atty. Frial deliberately
Atty. Joselito C. Frial is adjudged guilty of grave
withheld information as to its whereabouts. As it turned
misconduct and infidelity in the custody of properties in
out later, the Volvo was totally destroyed by fire, but the
custodia legis. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the
court was not immediately put on notice of this
practice of law for a period of one (1) year
development, thus compelling complaint to institute a
effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
disbarment case against Atty. Frial.
DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR., Complainant, versus
In his Answer, Atty. Frial admitted taking custody of the
ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT, Respondent.
cars thru his own undertaking, without authority and
A.C. No. 7057 July 25, 2006
knowledge of the court but he denied personally using
or allowing others the use of the cars, stating in this
Facts: The complainant, as attorney-in-fact of his
regard that if indeed the Nissan Sentra was spotted
mother Pura Lioanag Vda. de Almendarez, was the
being used and driven by an unknown person it could
plaintiff in an ejectment case before the MTC of
have been the time when the car was being transferred
Dagupan City. Respondent served as complainants
from the YMCA or brought to the gas station to be filled
counsel. While the case was pending, defendant Roger
up or was up for mechanical check-up. A to the Volvo,
Atty. Frial admitted receiving it in excellent condition and
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
Bumanlag deposited monthly rentals for the property in
dispute to the Branch Clerk of Court.
On 3 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision
in the ejectment case based on a compromise
agreement executed by complainant and Bumanlag. On
18 December 1995, the trial court issued an alias writ of
execution for the satisfaction of the decision. A court
order dated 2 March 2000 granted the Omnibus Motion
for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals filed
by respondent as complainants counsel was granted on
16 March 2000.
Sometime in May 2003, complainant learned that
respondent was able to withdraw the rentals deposited
by Bumanlag. The Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court,
confirmed this to the complainant presenting copies of
the two withdrawal slips drawn from the trial courts
savings account. One slip dated 10 March 2000 was for
P28,000 and another slip dated 19 April 2000 was for
P227,000. Thus, respondent received a total of
P255,000, as evidenced by two receipts signed by him.
Respondent did not inform complainant of these
transactions.
Complainant, through his new counsel Atty. Miguel D.
Larida, sent respondent on 30 June 2003 a final demand
letter for the accounting and return of the P255,000.
Respondent failed to reply. Hence, complainant filed this
case for disbarment against respondent for failing to
account for complainants funds.
On 8 June 2005, IBP Commissioner Dulay submitted his
Report and Recommendation with the finding that
respondent failed to account for money he held in trust
for complainant and it was recommended that
respondent be declared guilty of gross misconduct and
suspended for 1 (one) year, aside from being ordered to
render an accounting of the money he had received. In
a Resolution dated 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of
Governors approved the Report, with the modification
that the penalty of suspension be increased to 2 (two)
years.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Langit violated his oath
when he received the sum of money representing the
monthly rentals intended for his client.
Ruling: YES
Respondent received the money in his capacity as
counsel for complainant. Therefore, respondent held the
money in trust for complainant. Respondent should have
immediately notified complainant of the trial courts
approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited
rentals. Upon release of the funds to him, respondent
could have collected any lien which he had over them in
connection with his legal services, provided he gave
prompt notice to complainant. Respondents failure to
turn over the money to complainant despite the latters
demands gives rise to the presumption that he had
converted the money for his personal use and benefit.
The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary,
requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the
part of the attorney. Respondent miserably failed in this
regard. Instead, he demonstrated a lack of integrity,
care, and devotion required by the legal profession from
its members. Whenever a lawyer is no longer worthy of
the trust and confidence of the public, this Court has the
right and duty to withdraw his privilege as officer of the
Court and member of the Bar. WHEREFORE, we find
Atty. Minervo T. Langit GUILTY of violating Canons 1,
11, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for 2 (two) years effective upon
finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to
RESTITUTE, within 30 days from finality of this Decision,
complainants P255,000, with interest at 12% per annum
from 30 June 2003 until fully paid.
ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA,
complainants, vs. ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR.,
respondent. A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004
Facts: Respondent was, for years, Ana Alvaran Chua
and her now deceased husband Chua Yaps legal
counsel and adviser upon whom they reposed trust and
confidence. They were in fact lessees of a building
situated at Burgos Street and another property situated
at Melencio Street, both in Cabanatuan City and owned
by respondents family. These two properties were
mortgaged by the registered owner, respondents
mother Felicisima Melencio vda. de Mesina, in favor of
the Planters Development Bank to secure a loan she
obtained.
As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank,
respondent convinced complainant Ana Chua and her
husband to help Mrs. Mesina by way of settling her
obligation in consideration for which the Melencio
property would be sold to them at P850.00/sq. m.
Complainant accommodated respondents request, and
settled Mrs. Mesinas bank obligation in the amount of
P983,125.40.
A Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985
conveying the Melencio property for P85,400.00 was
thereafter executed by Mrs. Mesina, in favor of
complainants. As complainants were later apprised of
the amount of capital gains tax they were to pay,
respondent thus suggested to them that another Deed
of Absolute Sale should be executed, antedated to 1979
before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment
of capital gains tax. As suggested by respondent,
another Deed of Absolute Sale that was antedated was
created.
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
Sometime in February 1986, one Juanito Tecson filed an
Affidavit before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutors Office
charging respondents mother, the spouses Chua,
Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the said Deed
of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document
and violation of the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent
thereupon hatched a plan to dodge the falsification
charge against Mrs. Mesina et al. He proposed to
complainants that they would simulate a deed of sale of
the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell
it to Mrs. Mesina. Heeding the proposal of respondent,
complainants executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
April 1, 1986 conveying to Felicisima M. Melencio the
Melencio property.
Some years later or on May 2, 1990, respondent
approached complainants and told them that he would
borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas title with the
undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs.
Mesina execute a deed of sale over the Melencio
property in complainants favor. Despite respondents
repeated promises to effect the transfer of title in
complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants
were later informed that the Melencio property was
being offered for sale to the public.
The spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina Hsia thus
filed on August 24, 1992, a complaint against
respondent and his two siblings before the RTC of Nueva
Ecija in Cabanatuan City, for Declaration of Nullity of
Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property. While the
above civil case is still pending, an administrative
complaint was filed against respondent. The case was
referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. In March 3, 2003 a Report and
Recommendation was issued which states that On the
basis of the uncontroverted facts and evidence
presented, respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina has
committed gross misconduct which shows him to be
unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which
his license and law confer upon him, and recommended
that respondent be suspended for a period of One (1)
Year.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Mesina is guilty for breach
of professional ethics, which would warrant his
disbarment from the practice of Law.
Ruling: YES
This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of
gross misconduct as first, by advising complainants to
execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to
1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes, he
violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law. Second, when respondent convinced
complainants to execute another document, a simulated
Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that
complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his
mother, he committed dishonesty. Third, when on May
2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua
spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of his
mothers title upon the misrepresentation that he would,
in four months, have a deed of sale executed by his
mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed
dishonesty. In addition, the signature of Felicisima M.
Melencio in the 1985 document and that in the 1979
document are markedly different is in fact is a badge of
falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or
even both.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his
client but the business transaction must be characterized
with utmost honesty and good faith. Business
transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law.
Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to
assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. SIMEON M.
MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby
DISBARRED.
VALERIANA U. DALISAY, Complainant,
vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR., Respondent.
A.C. No. 5655 January 23, 2006
Facts: On October 13, 2001, complainant engaged the
respondents services as counsel in Civil Case pending
before the MTC in Binangonan, Rizal. Notwithstanding
his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in the total
amount of P56,000.00 from complainant, respondent
never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she
terminated the attorney-client relationship and
demanded the return of her money and documents, but
respondent refused. Thus, complainant instituted a
disbarment case against respondent.
On January 13, 2004, the IBP-CBD, recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of 6 months and required to refund the amount
of P56,000.00 to the complainant. On February 27,
2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution
adopting and approving in toto the Report and
Recommendation of IBP-CBD.
On April 22, 2005, respondent, upon learning of our
Decision, went to the MTC, Branch I, Binangonan, Rizal
to verify the status of Civil Case where he learned that
the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant
are not official records of the Municipal Assessor and the
Registry of Deed. Thereupon, respondent filed a Sworn
Affidavit. He alleged that complainant offered tampered
evidence.
Furthermore, respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration over the decision of IBP-BoG
administrative case alleging that complainant did not
engage his services as counsel in Civil Case but only
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
hired him for the purpose of filing two new petitions,
complainant refused to provide him with documents
related to the case, preventing him from doing his job
and complainant offered tampered evidence in Civil
Case, prompting him to file falsification cases against
her.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Mauricio is guilty of
Malpractice and gross misconduct.
Ruling: YES
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to
become his client. He has the right to decline
employment. But once he accepts money from a client,
an attorney-client relationship is established, giving rise
to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. From then
on, he is expected to be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latters
cause with wholehearted devotion.
Respondent assumed such obligations when he received
the amount of P56,000.00 from complainant and agreed
to handle her case. Unfortunately, he had been remiss in
the performance of his duties. As we have ruled earlier,
"there is nothing in the records to show that respondent
entered his appearance as counsel of record for
complainant in Civil Case." Neither is there any evidence
nor pleading submitted to show that he initiated new
petitions.
In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an
attorney begins with his or her retainer. It gives rise to a
relationship between an attorney and a client that is
highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate,
exacting, and confidential character, requiring a high
degree of fidelity and good faith. If much is demanded
from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only
to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the
public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar,
and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession. Indeed, law is an exacting goddess
demanding of her votaries not only intellectual but also
moral discipline. WHEREFORE, we DENY respondents
motion for reconsideration.
RULE 16.02 A LAWYER SHALLKEEP THE FUNDS
OF EACH CLIENT SEPARATE AND APART FROM
HIS OWN AND THOSE OF OTHERS KEPT BY HIM.
Any money or property of the client coming into
the possession of the lawyer should be reported by the
latter and accounted for promptly and should not, under
any circumstances, be commingled with his own or be
used by him.
ERLINDA R. TAROG, Complainant, vs. ATTY.
ROMULO L. RICAFORT, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8253 March 15, 2011
Facts: The original complainant was Arnulfo A. Tarog,
but his wife, Erlinda R. Tarog, substituted him upon his
intervening death.In 1992, complainant came to know
Respondent as the latter was referred by their then
counsel Atty. Jaime Millares, in connection to a bank-
foreclosed property owned by the complainant in Bicol.
Complainant ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their
attorney. Having willingly accepted the engagement,
Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as
filing fee, which they gave to him. He explained the
importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter
the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of
the foreclosed property. After they informed him that
they had only P60,000.00, he required them to add
some more amount. To raise the P65,000.00 for the
Tarogs, loaned P5,000.00 from one of her friend.
On November 7, 1992, the Tarogs and Vidal Millares,
brother of Atty. Millares, went to the office of Atty.
Ricafort to deliver the P65,000.00. When complainant
said that he had first to encash the check at the bank,
Atty. Ricafort persuaded him to entrust the check to him
instead so that he would be the one to encash it and
then deposit the amount in court. On that
representation, he handed the check to Atty. Ricafort.
After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to
verify the status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort
informed them that he had not deposited the amount in
court, but in his own account. He promised to return the
money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about
when the amount would be returned, however, the
Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort
that the money was in good hands.
The Tarogs further claimed that the Regional Trial Court
in Sorsogon, where their civil case was pending, was
being heard and required to file their memoranda.
Accordingly, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort
for that purpose, but he did not file the memorandum.
When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty.
Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning
the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arnulfo demanded by his
letter dated December 3, 2002 that Atty. Ricafort return
the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P15,000.00 paid
for the filing of the memorandum. Yet, they did not
receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort. Thus complainant
filed an administrative case against respondent.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort is guilty of grave
misconduct that would warrant his disbarment from the
practice of law.
Ruling: YES
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline rendered a Report and Recommendation that
respondent, Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort be DISBARRED and
be ordered to return the amount of P65,000 and
P15,000 which he got from his client. Commissioner
Reyes concluded that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon 15,
and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage
of the vulnerability of his clients and by being dishonest
in his dealings with them by refusing to return the
amount of P65,000.00 to them.
Atty. Ricaforts plain abuse of the confidence reposed in
him by his clients rendered him liable for violation of
Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01, supra, and Canon 17,
all of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His acts
and actuations constituted a gross violation of general
morality and of professional ethics that impaired public
confidence in the legal profession and deserved
punishment.
It is also important to note that this offense was not the
first disbarment case against Atty. Ricafort, which
aggravated his liability, as has was found to have
violated Rules 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 12.03 and Rule
12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility in relation to his failure to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of realty to the complainant in a
previous administrative case decided in 2000.
WHEREFORE, we find and declare Atty. Romulo L.
Ricafort guilty of a violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,
accordingly, DISBAR him. The Bar Confidant is directed
to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys and is
ordered to return to Erlinda R. Tarog the sums of
P65,000.00 and P15,000.00, plus interest of six percent
per annum reckoned from the demand made on
December 3, 2002, within twenty days from notice.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client's interest are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in
a legal matter he is handling for the client.
Linsangan vs. Atty. Tolentino
Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro
Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
services. Respondent promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
They found that he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid
agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that
respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that
any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated canon 16.04
of the CPR?
Held: By engaging in a money-lending venture with his
clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his
client unless the clients interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither
shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his
client. The only exception is, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as
filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety
bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection
with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an
additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own
recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a
settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his
duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.
Any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice which calls
for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers.
Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious
sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client
for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public
from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous
lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Parias vs Atty Paguinto
Facts: Complainant Dolores Dryden Parias (Parias)
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Oscar P.
Paguinto (Paguinto) to annul her marriage to Danilo
Soriano. They agreed that for the legal services, Parias
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
would pay Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000, the
filing fee of P2,500 and other incidental expenses.
Paguinto informed her that the case was filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 64. When she
went to the trial court to inquire about her case, the
court personnel informed her that there was no such
case filed in their court.
It turned out that there was no annulment case filed in
RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return the
money that Parias paid as down payment. However,
Paguinto returned the P10,000 only after Parias filed
with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) the present
complaint for disbarment.
The Commissioner found Paguinto negligent in
performing his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of
the court. The Commissioner declared that a lawyer has
the duty to give adequate attention, care and time to his
cases, accepting only as many cases as he can handle.
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated canon 18 of
the CPR?
Held: 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. The
lawyer owes it to his client to exercise his utmost
learning and ability in handling his cases. A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. He shall serve
his client with competence and diligence, and his duty of
entire devotion to his clients cause not only requires, but
entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure
for the client what is justly due him or to present every
defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to
succeed. Failure to do so violates Canon 18 of the Code.
A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render.
However, he may render such service if, with the
consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rollon vs. Atty. Naraval
Facts: Consorcia S. Rollon filed a letter-complaint
against Atty. Camilo Naraval with the Davao City
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
alleging that she engaged the services of the latter for a
case of collection of sum of money with prayer for
attachment and paid PhP8,000 for the filing and partial
service fee. However, Naraval failed to act on the case
and refused to return the documents submitted and the
amount paid. The Board recommended the suspension
of respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years
for violation of Rules 15 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Issue: Whether or not Naraval is guilty of violating the
CPR?
Held: Yes. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client
with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. The
deplorable conduct of the respondent in misrepresenting
to the complainant that he will render legal services to
her, and after receiving certain amount from the latter
as payment for filing fee and service fee did nothing in
return, has caused unnecessary dishonor to the bar. By
his own conduct the respect of the community to the
legal profession, of which he swore to protect, has been
tarnished.
De Juan vs Atty. Baria
Facts: Complainant, former client of respondent,
charged respondent with negligence in handling her
labor case and threats against her person.
Complainant blamed respondent for the reversal. She
said that she came to know of the reversal of the Labor
Arbiters decision when she called respondent in October
2001. When she asked the respondent what they should
do, respondent answered, Paano iyan iha eh hindi ako
marunong gumawa ng Motion for Reconsideration.
Sometime in November 2001, her husband called
respondent to ask if he did anything in connection with
the NLRCs Decision and he was advised by respondents
secretary that, Sabi ni Atty, huwag na kayong magpakita
sa kanya dahil galit na galit sa inyo si Attorney at baka
kung ano pa ang magawa niya sa inyo. The Court
required respondent to comment and referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
Issue: Whether the respondent committed culpable
negligence, as would warrant disciplinary action, in
failing to file for the complainant a motion for
reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC.
Held: No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees
to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. Further, among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case
becomes final and executory.
His excuse that he did not know how to file a motion for
reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. A lawyer
should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render
him liable for disciplinary action.
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
Without a proper revocation of his authority and
withdrawal as counsel, respondent remains counsel of
record and whether or not he has a valid cause to
withdraw from the case, he cannot just do so and leave
his client out in the cold. An attorney may only retire
from the case either by a written consent of his client or
by permission of the court after due notice and hearing,
in which event the attorney should see to it that the
name of the new attorney is recorded in the case.
Respondent did not comply with these obligations.
RULE 18.02 A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
RIZALINO FERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY.
REYNALDO NOVERO, JR. respondent.
FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patent and gross
neglect in the handling of a civil case which complainant
Rizalino Fernandez and others had filed against the
Bacolod City Water District.
COMPLAINT of RIZALINO FERNANDEZ:
Complainant imputed the following negligent acts to
respondent which led to the dismissal of the civil case:
1. Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing nor
seek a postponement thereof, for which reason the trial
court considered respondent to have waived further
presentation of his evidence and directed him to formally
offer his exhibits for admission;
2. Notwithstanding receipt of the order, respondent
failed to formally offer his exhibits, prompting the trial
court to order the dismissal of the case;
3. While respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order of dismissal, he did not file his motion within
the reglementary period, as a result of which the said
motion was denied by the trial court for having been
filed out of time;
4. When asked for an explanation regarding the
dismissal of the case, respondent informed complainant
through a letter, that he had filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal, but the motion,
which had been filed a long time ago, had not yet been
resolved by the trial court;
5. Respondent tried to shift the blame on complainant
by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his
sister from Manila as their last witness. The truth was
that complainants sister had already testified and there
was no more witness to present; and
6. Respondent only attended one (1) hearing in the civil
case.
ANSWER of ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.: He
alleged that complainant engaged his legal services after
the first counsel had withdrawn from the case because
of a misunderstanding with complainant. He stated that
he had no knowledge of what had happened in the case
before he handled it because complainant did not
furnish him the records and stenographic notes of the
previous proceedings despite his repeated requests.
Respondent further claimed that he failed to formally
offer the exhibits as evidence because complainant could
not be reached when he was needed for conference and
the latter even tried to take over the handling of the
case by insisting on presenting more witnesses who
nevertheless failed to appear during trial despite several
postponements.
ISSUE: WON that respondent has been negligent in the
performance of his duties as complainants counsel.
RULING: YES. Respondent's failure to file his formal
offer of exhibits constitutes inexcusable negligence as it
proved fatal to the cause of his client since it led to the
dismissal of the case. To compound his inefficiency,
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration outside the
reglementary period, which was thus accordingly denied
by the trial court for being filed out of time. Hence, the
order issued by the trial court dismissing the case
became final.
RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
LUCILA S. BARBUCO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN, respondent.
FACTS: COMPLAINT of LUCILA S. BARBUCO:
Complainant, through her son, Benito Sy, engaged the
services of respondent for the purpose of filing an
appeal before the Court of Appeals. Complainant,
through Benito B. Sy, gave respondent payment of the
docket fees. Complainants appeal was dismissed by the
Court of Appeals for failure to file Appellants Brief. She
found out that her appeal had been dismissed only when
her son went to the Court of Appeals to verify the status
of the case.
COMMENT OF ATTY. RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN:
Respondent Beltran averred that the docket fees were
paid on time and that he filed the Appellants Brief with
the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal was
dismissed. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration, on the ground that he received the
notice to file brief on June 25, 1998; however, on June
26, 1998, he met a vehicular accident which physically
incapacitated him for several days; and that as a result
of the accident, he suffered head injuries which caused
him to lose track of deadlines for the filing of pleadings.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on the
ground that the brief for defendant-appellant was filed
forty-three (43) days late.
ISSUE: WON that respondent has been negligent in the
performance of his duties as complainants counsel.
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
YES. Respondents conduct relative to the belated filing
of the Appellants Brief falls below the standards exacted
upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their
clients cause.
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Failure to
file brief within the reglementary period certainly
constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the delay
of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the dismissal of
the appeal. The fact that respondent was involved in a
vehicular accident and suffered physical injuries as a
result thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing his
pleadings on time considering that he was a member of
a law firm composed of not just one lawyer. This is
shown by the receipt he issued to complainant and the
pleadings which he signed for and on behalf of the
Beltran, Beltran and Beltran Law Office. As such,
respondent could have asked any of his partners in the
law office to file the Appellants Brief for him or, at least,
to file a Motion for Extension of Time to file the said
pleading.
RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's
request for information.
DOMINGA RUIZ, APOLONIA RUIZ, FLORENCIO
RUIZ, CORNELIA RUIZ, OLIMPIO RUIZ, and
HEIRS OF TOMASA RUIZ, Petitioners, - versus -
CIRILA DELOS SANTOS, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioners were the original owners of seven
parcels of land. Cirila delos Santos is a duly licensed real
estate broker.
Olimpio gave respondent the plan of the subject
property and verbally authorized her to sell the same.
Respondent introduced Olimpio to Tantiansu and they all
went together to the location of the properties.
Tantiansu showed interest in the properties. Respondent
asked Olimpio for the renewal of her authority, to sell to
which the former obliged. In the authority to sell, it was
specified that she would still be paid her commission
even after the said authority expired, provided she
registered in writing her prospective buyer with whom
she negotiated during the period of authority.
Accordingly, respondent notified petitioners in writing
that Tantiansu was her buyer. Respondent later learned
that the properties were sold to different corporations as
indicated in the deeds of sale. She found out that the
corporations were owned by Tantiansu. Respondent
then demanded the payment of her broker's
commission, but was unheeded.
COMPLAINT OF CIRILA DELOS SANTOS:
Respondent filed a complaint for collection of sum of
money and damages against all petitioners, alleging that
it was through her effort as a real estate broker that she
was able to bring about the consummation of the sale of
the subject property, to petitioners' immense gain and
benefits; that despite the sale and her repeated
demands, petitioners refused to pay her broker's fee.
RTC: Judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff
[respondent] and against the defendants [petitioners].
Petitioners filed their notice of appeal. Respondent
filed her Comment and/or opposition thereto, alleging
that the appeal was not perfected for failure of
petitioners to file the docket/appeal fee within the
reglementary period to appeal. The RTC denied
petitioners' appeal.
Petitioners filed a petition for relief from the RTC
Order that did not giving due course to their notice of
appeal on the grounds of mistake and excusable
negligence committed by their counsel. They contend
that their counsel mistakenly erred when he relied in
good faith on the affirmation made by the trial court's
clerk of court that the appeal fees would be accepted
even after the period for the filing of the notice of
appeal. RTC likewise denied the petition for relief.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners' petition for relief from
denial of appeal.
HELD: NO. To begin with, petitioners, through counsel,
received a copy of the RTC decision dated September
22, 2003 on September 30 2003. Thus, petitioners had
until October 15, 2003 within which to perfect their
appeal by filing the notice of appeal and paying the
appellate docket and other legal fees. On October 14,
2003, petitioners filed their notice of appeal through
registered mail without paying the appeal fees.
It is a well-settled rule that the mere filing of the notice
of appeal is not enough, for it must be accompanied by
the payment of the correct appellate docket fees.
Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed
period is mandatory. It is an essential requirement
without which the decision appealed from would become
final and executory as if no appeal has been filed.
Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period
is not a mere technicality but jurisdictional, and failure to
perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and
executory.
SPS. ANTONIO and NORMA SORIANO,
Complainants, - versus - ATTY. REYNALDO P.
REYES, Respondent.
For alleged gross negligence in handling two civil cases,
a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant
spouses Antonio and Norma Soriano against Atty.
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro
Reynaldo P. Reyes.
CIVIL CASE #1: Complainants alleged that they
engaged the services of respondent in a case they filed
against Peninsula Development Bank. The case was for
Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and/or Restraining
Order. While the case was pending, respondent
reassured complainants that he was diligently attending
to the case and will inform them of the status of their
case.
CIVIL CASE #2: Complainants again engaged the
services of respondent in a case they filed against the
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center entitled for
Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order. During the pendency of the second
case, complainants inquired from respondent the status
of the earlier civil case, the latter informed them that the
same was still pending and/or ongoing.
Later, complainants learned that Civil Case #1 was
dismissed for failure of the respondent to file a pre-trial
brief. As to Civil Case #2, complainants likewise found
out that the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Upon filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, though, the
case was reconsidered and reinstated.
Claiming that the acts of respondent greatly prejudiced
and damaged them, complainants filed a Complaint for
disbarment against respondent before this Court.
ISSUE: WON Respondent was negligent in handling the
case?
As to Civil Case #1, records show that it was dismissed
for failure of respondent to file the pre-trial brief.
Respondents failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes
inexcusable negligence. Since pre-trial is a serious
business of the court, preparation of the lawyers and
parties for the pre-trial in both questions of fact and of
law cannot be overemphasized as an essential
requirement for a pre-trial conference. In this case,
respondent did not only fail to file the pre-trial brief
within the given period. Worse, he had not submitted
the required pre-trial brief even at the time he filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal
several months later.
Anent Civil Case #2, the case was indeed dismissed for
failure to prosecute although the said dismissal was later
on reconsidered. However, this does not detract to the
conclusion that, truly, respondent failed to demonstrate
the required diligence in handling the case of
complainants. Quite apart from the above, respondent
also lacked candor in dealing with his clients as he
omitted to apprise complainants of the status of the two
cases and even assured the complainants that he was
diligently attending to said cases.
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT, Complainant, - versus -
ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA, Respondent.
The complaining client is Ofelia R. Somosot, a defendant
in a collection case before the trial court; her defense
was handled by Atty. Gerardo F. Lara.
COMPLAINT: In support of her complaint for
disbarment, the complainant alleged that after filing the
Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully
inform her of further developments in the case. She only
heard about the case when there was already a decision
against her and her co-defendants. She even belatedly
learned that the respondent had sought his discharge as
counsel without her knowledge and consent. Contrary to
the respondent's claim that he could no longer locate
her, she claimed that the respondent knew all along
where she lived and could have easily contacted her had
he been in good faith.
ANSWER: Respondent alleged that he objected to the
interrogatories and request for admission and did all he
could, even filing a reply to the defendants comment to
his objection. He likewise alleged that from May 3, 2001
to August 2, 2001, the complainant had not paid the
billings sent to her; that the complainant could not be
contacted because she had closed her office without any
forwarding address; that as of November 1, 2001, he
had been appointed as a consultant in the office of BOI
Governor J. Antonio Leviste; and that he continued to
represent the complainant even after the trial courts
decision by filing a motion for reconsideration and
opposing the plaintiffs motion for execution.
ISSUE: WON Respondent was negligent in handling the
case? YES.
RULING: First, the respondent failed to precisely allege
in his submissions how he tried to contact the defendant
on or about the time the interrogatories and request for
admission were pending. It appears that he really had
not; by his own admission, his attempt to contact the
complainant came in December 2001 and only to inform
her of his government appointment and to collect his
billings.
Second. The interrogatories/admission issue happened
in August 2001, which tells us that the respondent at
about that time was already very sensitive about his
billing issue against his client as he had not been paid
from May to August 2001. Assuming the non-payment to
be true, such failure should not be a reason not to
inform the client of an important development, or worse,
to withhold vital information from her.
Third. The respondent failed to provide details on the
developments that led to the adverse rulings on the
interrogatories/admissions and the judgment on the
pleadings.
 Problems in Legal Ethics: Canon 16 18
April Anne V. Diano, Clarisse Joy Arnaez and Stella Monette De castro

Fourth, on the matter of the respondents withdrawal

from the case, the respondent might have had valid
reasons to withdraw and terminate his relationship with
his client.

Fifth. We wonder why the respondent did not appeal the

decision against his client.