CANON 18
A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
RULE 138, SEC. 23. Authority of attorneys
to bind clients.
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients
in any case by any agreement in relation
thereto made in writing, and in taking
appeals, and in all matters of ordinary
judicial procedure. But they cannot, without
special authority, compromise their client's
litigation, or receive anything in discharge of
a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
34
A.C. No. 7815 July 23, 2009
DOLORES C. BELLEZA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA, Respondent
Respondent Disrespected
Legal Processes
Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to
answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed indifference
to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the
accusations of professional misconduct against him. In doing
so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of
time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period
lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
Respondent also ignored the CBDs directive for him to file
his position paper. His propensity to flout the orders of the
CBD showed his lack of concern and disrespect for the
proceedings of the CBD. He disregarded the oath he took
when he was accepted to the legal profession "to obey the
laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal
authorities." He displayed insolence not only to the CBD but
also to this Court which is the source of the CBDs authority.
Respondents unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the
CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted utter
disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His
conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to
obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand
foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of
the court. Respondent should have known that the orders of
the CBD (as the investigating arm of the Court in
administrative cases against lawyers) were not mere
requests but directives which should have been complied
with promptly and completely.
Respondent Grossly Neglected
The Cause of His Client
Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against
complainants son. Such undertaking imposed upon him the
following duties:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to
devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and
effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be
worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied.
A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client
undertakes to serve his client with competence and
diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty arising
from such relationship. He must bear in mind that by
accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following
representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of
learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated
possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the
prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the use
of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his
clients cause; and that he will take all steps necessary to
adequately safeguard his clients interest.
A lawyers negligence in the discharge of his obligations
arising from the relationship of counsel and client may cause
delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights
of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the
perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyers
lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both
unprofessional and unethical.
If his clients case is already pending in court, a lawyer must
actively represent his client by promptly filing the necessary
pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled
hearings. This is specially significant for a lawyer who
represents an accused in a criminal case.
The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the
Constitution. However, this right can only be meaningful if
the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his
lawyer:
... The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental
principle of due process which basically means that a person
must be heard before being condemned. The due process
requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a
mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed
perfunctorily.
The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of
a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of
standard questions and objections. The right to counsel
means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance
extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for
the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an
active involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings,
particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in
mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-
versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental
procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence.
[T]he right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a
fundamental right. Without counsel, the right to a fair trial
itself would be of little consequence, for it is through counsel
that the accused secures his other rights. In other words,
the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of
counsel.
The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the
performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his
client. Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly
decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory
representation.
In this case, after accepting the criminal case against
complainants son and receiving his attorneys fees,
respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective
and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes,
respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on
account of respondents continued inaction, complainant was
compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorneys
Office. Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the case
of complainants son was reprehensible. Not only did it
prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his
constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use
the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure
the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly
impeded the latters constitutional right to bail.
Respondent Failed to Return
His Clients Money
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and
client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for or from the
client.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for
a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees,
transportation and office expenses), he should promptly
account to the client how the money was spent. If he does
not use the money for its intended purpose, he must
immediately return it to the client. His failure either to
render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended
purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a
blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his clients funds
or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to
return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use
to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in
him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality
as well as of professional ethics; it impairs public confidence
in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Indeed, it
may border on the criminal as it may constitute a prima facie
case of swindling or estafa.
Respondent never denied receiving P18,000 from
complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the
provisional liberty of her son. He never used the money for
its intended purpose yet also never returned it to the client.
Worse, he unjustifiably refused to turn over the amount to
complainant despite the latters repeated demands.
Moreover, respondent rendered no service that would have
entitled him to the P30,000 attorneys fees. As a rule, the
right of a lawyer to a reasonable compensation for his
services is subject to two requisites: (1) the existence of an
attorney-client relationship and (2) the rendition by the
lawyer of services to the client. Thus, a lawyer who does not
render legal services is not entitled to attorneys fees.
Otherwise, not only would he be unjustly enriched at the
expense of the client, he would also be rewarded for his
negligence and irresponsibility.
Respondent Failed to Uphold the Integrity and
Dignity of the Legal Profession
For his failure to comply with the exacting ethical standards
of the legal profession, respondent failed to obey Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, a lawyer who fails to abide by the Canons and Rules
of the Code of Professional Responsibility disrespects the
said Code and everything that it stands for. In so doing, he
disregards the ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal
profession.
Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the
legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may
be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
comport himself in a manner that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him.
Instead of using the money for the bond of the
complainants son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his client. He
failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By keeping the money
for himself despite his undertaking that he would facilitate
the release of complainants son, respondent showed lack of
moral principles. His transgression showed him to be a
swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the legal
profession.
35
A.C. No. 10910 January 12, 2016
[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594)
ANTERO M. SISON, JR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.
The Court finds that Atty. Camacho violated Rules 1.01 and
16.01 of the CPR.
Entering into a compromise
agreement without written
authority of the client
Those in the legal profession must always conduct
themselves with honesty and integrity in all their dealings.
Members of the Bar took their oath to conduct themselves
according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to
delay no man for money or malice. These mandates apply
especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients
considering the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.
In the practice of law, lawyers constantly formulate
compromise agreements for the benefit of their clients.
Article 1878 of the Civil Code provides that " [ s ]pecial
powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases: xxx
(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to
renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive
objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a
prescription already acquired xxx."
In line with the fiduciary duty of the Members of the Bar,
Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifies a
stringent requirement with respect to compromise
agreements, to wit:
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. - Attorneys
have authority to bind their clients in any case by any
agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking
appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure.
But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client's litigation, or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full
amount in cash.
[Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied]
In the case at bench, the R TC decision, dated May 26,
2011, awarded MDAHI approximately P65,000,000.00. When
Paramount Insurance offered a compromise settlement in
the amount of Pl5,000,000.00, it was clear as daylight that
MDAHI never consented to the said offer. As can be gleaned
from Atty. Camacho's letter, MDAHI did not sign the
conforme regarding the compromise agreement.
Glaringly, despite the lack of a written special authority, Atty.
Camacho agreed to a lower judgment award on behalf of his
client and filed a satisfaction of judgment before the R TC.
The said pleading also failed to bear the conformity of his
client. Although MDAHI subsequently received the payment
of P15M from Paramount Insurance, it does not erase Atty.
Camacho's transgression in reaching the compromise
agreement without the prior consent of his client.
For entering into a compromise agreement without the
written authority of his client, Atty. Camacho violated Rule
1.01 of the CPR, which states that " [a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." Members of the Bar must always conduct
themselves in a way that promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession.
36
G.R. No. 159781 February 2, 2011
PETER BEJARASCO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels
acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural
technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once
retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary
or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management
of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or
omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is
regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of
the client himself. A recognized exception to the rule is
when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel
deprives the client of due process of law. For the exception
to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be
accompanied by the clients own negligence or malice,
considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in
respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the
status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should
suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.
Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status
of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case
entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is the clients duty to
be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be
informed of the progress and developments of his case;4
hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer
that everything is being taken care of is not enough.
Here, the petitioner took nearly 16 months from the issuance
of the entry of judgment by the CA, and almost 22 months
from when the RTC affirmed the convictions before he
actually filed his petition for review in the CA. He ought to
have been sooner alerted about his dire situation by the fact
that an unreasonably long time had lapsed since the RTC
had handed down its dismissal of his appeal without Atty.
Besario having updated him on the developments, including
showing to him a copy of the expected petition for review.
Also, he could have himself verified at the CA whether or not
the petition for review had been filed, especially upon
realizing that Atty. Besario had started making himself scarce
to him. In short, the petitioners failure to know or to find
out the real status of his appeal rendered him undeserving
of any sympathy from the Court vis--vis the negligence of
his former counsel.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be
exercised only in the manner prescribed by the law.5 The
right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant who does not
comply with the manner thus prescribed. So it is with the
petitioner.
Rule 18.01
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.
Rule 18.02
A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
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.
37
A.C. No. 5817 May 27, 2004
EMMA V. DE JUAN, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III, respondent.
The core issue is 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.
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.11 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. A lawyer is not at
liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services
without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate
in the circumstances.12 Any dereliction of duty by a counsel,
affects the client.13 This means that his client is entitled to
the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to
assert every such remedy or defense.14
The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a
motion for reconsideration of the NLRC such that the said
decision eventually had become final and executory.
Respondent does not refute this. His excuse that he did not
know how to file a motion for reconsideration is lame and
unacceptable. After complainant had expressed an interest
to file a motion for reconsideration, it was incumbent upon
counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize
himself with the procedural rules for a motion for
reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a
complicated legal task.
We are however, not unaware that respondent had been
forthright and candid with his client when he warned her of
his lack of experience as a new lawyer. We are also not
unaware that he had advised complainant to get a new
lawyer. However, his candor cannot absolve him. As already
stressed by this Court:
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of
law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is
entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted
devotion to his clients cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to
serve his client with competence and diligence and he should
exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of law the
interest of his client. 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.15
Again, the Court held in the case of Santos v. Lazaro,16 that
"Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility17
explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection
with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall
render them liable.
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.18 Respondent did not comply with
these obligations.

38
A.C. No. 1372 June 27, 2002
SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO
D. RABANAL, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE, respondent.
Respondent claims that he was not the counsel of
complainant Cayetano Rabanal prior to the filing of a motion
for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals and he could
not be held responsible for the dismissal of complainant's
appeal for failure of counsel to file the appellant's brief. We
disagree.
The absence of a written contract does not preclude a
finding that there was a professional relationship which
merits attorney's fees for professional services rendered. A
written contract is not an essential element in the
employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the
advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received
in any matter pertinent to his profession.20 Thus, in
Villafuerte v. Cortez,21 the Court held that the admission of
respondent lawyer that he received payment from
complainant is sufficient evidence to establish a lawyer-client
relationship. In this case, complainant sought and received
legal advice from respondent Tugade, who admitted that he
agreed to sign the appellant's brief to be filed and that he
received P600.00 from complainant spouses. It is therefore
clear that a lawyer-client relationship existed between the
two.
It is immaterial that respondent Tugade assisted Cayetano in
the case as a mere friend or "kababayan" of the latter. In
Junio v. Grupo,22 respondent also denied the existence of a
lawyer-client relationship, stating that complainant was a
close personal friend whom he helped in a personal capacity.
Nonetheless, it was held:
To constitute professional employment it is not
essential that the client should have employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion. .
. It is not necessary that any retainer should have
been paid, promised, or charged for: neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his
business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults
with his attorney in his professional capacity with
the view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the
professional employment must be regarded as
established. . . .
In this case, Cayetano consulted respondent Tugade in his
professional capacity in order to obtain advice concerning his
appeal. Respondent agreed, as shown by his acceptance of
the payment to him, his receipt of the TSNs of the case, and
the fact that he signed the appellant's brief. His claim that
he merely accepted payment but that he asked another
lawyer to prepare the brief is an obvious subterfuge. He has
not even named the lawyer assuming that the latter is real.
It is hard to see why respondent should personally accept
payment and the transcripts of stenographic notes from
complainant if he did not intend to prepare the appellant's
brief. Moreover, the fact that respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration after the dismissal of the appeal only
confirms that he was indeed Cayetano's lawyer.
The records clearly show that respondent Atty. Faustino F.
Tugade was remiss in the performance of his duties as
counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal. He was given by
the Court of Appeals an extension of time totalling 60 days
within which to file the appellant's brief, but he failed to file
the same. He thus violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
RULE 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to
do so.
RULE 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Indeed, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He
should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him, remembering always that his actions or omissions are
binding on his clients. In this case, the failure of respondent
to file the appellant's brief resulted in the dismissal of the
appeal. As a consequence, the decision in the trial court
finding complainant guilty of homicide became final and
executory and he was sentenced to ten years of
imprisonment. As has been held:
An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest
to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
(Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159)
A failure to file brief for his client certainly
constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.
(People vs. Villar, 46 SCRA 107) The respondent
has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty
owed by him to his client as well as to the Court
not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy
administration of justice. (People vs. Daban, 43
SCRA 185; People vs. Estocada, 43 SCRA 515).24
It should likewise be noted that respondent failed to notify
the IBP of his change of address, thus delaying the
resolution of this case. Service of notice and other pleadings,
which must be furnished to the parties, must be made at the
last address on record. If the parties are represented by
counsel, such notices shall be sent instead to the counsel's
last given address on record in the absence of a proper and
adequate notice of a change of address, unless service upon
the party himself is ordered.25
In Resurreccion v. Sayson,26 the Court attributed the delay in
the resolution of an administrative case to respondent
lawyer, after finding that "The 27-year delay in the
resolution of this case was, to a large extent, caused by his
failure to appear before the Office of the Solicitor General
and to inform the IBP of his change of address, a failure that
also indicated his lack of regard for the very serious charges
brought against him." Similarly, respondent Tugade likewise
showed a disregard of the charge against him, and the IBP
properly made its recommendation solely on the basis of
complainants' testimonies and the documentary evidence.

39