Sta.

Maria vs Tuason

Facts: This is a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Eduardo M. Tuason, instituted by Emilio Sta. Maria.
Sometime in June 1955, Atty. Tuason represented the partnership of Sta. Maria, Guanzon and Chincuanco
in a collection case against Enriqueta de Hidalgo, involving a promissory note of P50,000.00. Defendant
Hidalgo in this case was declared in default and was ordered to pay. By virtue of a writ of execution, the
provincial sheriff of Pampanga was able to obtain the amount of P22,930.64.

Respondent Tuason got the whole amount from the sheriff and applied it in the following manner : P10,000
attorney’s fees, P1,648 supposed expenses of litigation which he claimed to have advanced during the
prosecution and the balance of P11,282.64 to Fausto Chincuanco, his uncle.

Despite demands from Sta. Maria to turn over the money to him or to the sheriff, respondent failed to comply
and contempt proceedings were instituted against Tuason. The matter was referred to the Office of the
Solicitor General who made the findings and recommendation that: respondent Tuason was not in
connivance with his uncle Chincuanco in depriving petitioner of his lawful share in the liquidation of
partnership assets, however, the collection of P10,000 as attorney’s fees after the case was terminated
after one brief hearing is unreasonable. There was also no evidence presented to show that Tuason actually
spent P1,648 for the expenses.

The Sol. Gen. recommended that instead of a more severe penalty which he would otherwise deserve,
respondent be reprimanded for professional indiscretion, with a warning that a more severe penalty be
imposed for the repetition of the same of similar acts.

Issue : Whether respondent committed acts that would merit his disbarment.

Held: The fact that the respondent placed his private and personal interest over and above that of his clients
constitutes a breach of the lawyer’s oath, to say the least. Call it professional indiscretion or any other name,
but the cold fact remains that the act is not conducive to the health growth of the legal profession.
Respondent is hereby admonished that a repetition of similar acts will merit more drastic action.

Aya vs Bigornia
Facts: The case at bar is an administrative case against Juan Bigornia, an attorney at law, for non-
professional conduct. Herein complainant, Domingo Aya, addressed to the attorney general a complaint
against respondent attorney for misappropriating the funds belonging to Aya. The relation of attorney and
client existed between Aya and Bigornia at the time the transactions in question took place. Bigornia, as
Aya’s attorney, obtained judgment in favor of Aya for the sum of Php 1,000 plus interest and costs. Bigornia
admits receieving all of the money collected on this judgment. Furthermore, in his answer to the Attorney-
General’s report, he admits that there was unreasonable delay on his part in accounting for the funds
collected by himfor his former client.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Juan Bigornia is guilty of breach of trust and misappropriation of funds.

Held: Yes. This Court is convinced from a careful examination of the records that Attorney Bigornia was
guilty of breach of trust and misappropriation of funds at the time he collected the sums of money aforesaid
on the judgment in favor of his client, and appropriated them to his own use. Money collected by an attorney
on a judgment in favor of his client are trust funds and should be immediately paid over to the client, less
such proper deductions as may be allowed by law. In this case, there was gross abuse of such trust.
Businos vs Ricafort

Facts: Respondent Atty. Ricafort was the counsel of records of herein complainant in a civil case wherein
he was appointed to be the true and lawful attorney-in-fact of complainant to represent, testify and collect
the sum of money from the court. Respondent received the amount from the court and OAS Standard High
School which was entrusted to hum by herein complainant to deposit the same to the bank account of
complainant’s husband. However, instead of depositing the money, herein respondent used the same for
his personal use and despite of several demands of complainant, he failed to return the money which forced
complainant to file a criminal case, administrative case, and disbarment case against him. Complainant
further accused him for demanding and receiving Php 20,000.00 which he said will be used for the bond in
civil case which was never really required in the said case.

The Court issued several resolutions against respondent but he did not comply. The court decided that e
deemed to have waived his right to file his comment.

On the third hearing of the estafa case against respondent, he came to the court with the money and paid
complainant which made her not to pursue with the estafa case but did not withdraw the instant complaint.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort violated his lawyer’s oath

Held. Yes. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself no to delay any man for money or malice and is boung
to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clientd and is obligated to report promptly the money of his
clients that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for
his personal purposes without his client’s consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client is held in trust and must
immediately turned over to them. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed bu clients require in the
attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the courts and the public.

Espiritu vs Cabredo

Facts: This case involves an administrative complaint filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by
herein complainant, Cesar Espiritu, against herein respondent, Atty. Juan Cabredo IV, fo failure to fulfill a
fiduciary obligation to a client. On December 10, 1999, complainant engaged in the services of respondent
to represent him in the two civil cases filed against him. Subsequently, through respondent’s representative,
Reynaldo Nuez, he received from Esphar Php 16,000.oo for use as filing and acceptance fees. While th e
cases where pending in court, Atty. Cabrero advised Esphar to remit money and update payment to BPI-
FSB through the trial court. Accodringly, Eshpar delivered a total of Php 51,161.00 to Att.y Cabredos office.
Later on, respondent failed to appear at the hearing of the civil cases and they also found out that
respondent did not also deliver the sum of Php 51,161.00 to the court of to BPI-FSB. Thereafter, Espiritu
filed a complaint against Atty. Caredo for fraud. In his answer, respondent contended that it was his
secretary who failed to inform him of the delivered amount and it was only when he read the first demand
letter that he learned about the receipt of money.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of breach of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; particularly, Canon 16, Rules 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03. The relationship between a lawter
and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. Hence, in dealing with
trust property, a lawyer should be very scrupulous. Money or other trust property of the client coming into
the possession of the lawyer should be reported by the latter and accounted for propmptly and should not,
under any circumstances, be commingled with his own or be used by him.
Matute vs Matute

Facts: This case originated in a motion filed by respondents, Jose S. Matute, Anunciacion Candelario,
Elena Matute y Candelario and Amadeo Matute y Candelario, praying that the former administrator, Matias
S. Matuta, be ordered to surrender 17 titles to various properties of the Estate to the assistant clerk of court,
from whom said Matias had received them. The motion was vigorously resisted by the co-administrators
Matias and Carlos Matute and several other heirs, who pleaded that the removal of Matias as administrator
and his replacement by Jose S. Matute were still under appeal; that the titles aforesaid had been delivered
to both Matias and Carlos Matute; that the latter is at present and from time to time in possession of said
titles; that Attorney Paterno Canlas had a pending claim for Php 261,000.00, on account of legal services
rendered to the estate for the study, preparation, drafting, due execution, and probate of the `1952
testament of the deceases. Atty. Canlas retained said titles in the exercise of his retention lien for services
rendered to the estate.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Paterno Canlas has a right to retain the 17 titles to various properties

Held: Yes. The Court held that Atty. Canlas has a right, according to Rule 138, Section 37 of the Rules of
Court, to retain the 17 titles to various properties until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid is
incontestable, and under the rule and section aforesaid, the attorney cannot be compelled to surrender the
muniments of title mentioned without prior proof that his fees have been duly satisfied. The courts, in the
exercise of their supervisory authority over attorneys as officers of the ocurt, are bound to respect and
protect the attorney’s lien as a necessary means to preserve the decorum and respectability of the
profession.

Aro vs Nanawa
Facts: In 1964, Luis and Pablo Magtibay engaged the services of Atty. Regino Aro in a partition case. The
Magtibays have no money to pay Atty. Aro and so a contingent fee agreement was reduced in writing. Atty.
Aro did his part in prosecuting the case. Later, Atty. Aro was able to negotiate a proposed amicable
settlement whereby the opposing party agreed to pay P3,000.00 to the Magtibays. Atty. Aro then advised
his clients to meet with the other party but unfortunately, the Magtibays were not able to do so.
Later in October 1964, Atty. Aro received an order from the trial judge (Judge Arsenio Nañawa) which stated
that the case has been dismissed because the Magtibays had already entered into an amicable settlement
(extrajudicial settlement) with the other party. Atty. Aro opposed the dismissal on the ground that such
extrajudicial settlement without his assistance was fraudulent because it deprived him of the contingent
fees.
The Magtibay’s contended that it is their right to settle the case amicably even without the assistance of
Atty. Aro and that it is also their right to withdraw the services of Atty. Aro even before the case is settled.
The judge agreed with the Magtibays

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Aro is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Held: Yes. It is true that a client can withdraw the services of his counsel at any time provided the same is
grounded on valid reasons. It is also true that a client can enter into an amicable settlement with the
opposing party even without the assistance of counsel. However, if such is an attempt to defraud or if it is
a collusive agreement to deprive the lawyer of his attorney’s fees, then the courts can intervene to protect
the lawyers, who are officers of the court.
In this case, it is undisputed that there is already a written agreement as to Atty. Aro’s fees (the contingent
fee agreement). Fraud is apparent in this case because it appears that the amicable settlement initially
secured by Atty. Aro for the Magtibays is better than that secured by the Magtibays without the assistance
of Aro. Besides, there was no justifiable reason as to why the Magtibays dismissed the services of Aro. It
was through Aro’s effort that the Magtibay’s right to the disputed property was finally recognized by the
other party (who was actually their aunt).

Frias vs Lozada

Facts: Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was formerly found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision
of the Court of Appeals. She was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Court, contending that, pursuant to Rule
VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), the complaint against her was already barred by prescription. She also asserts that her
December 7, 1990 loan agreement with complainant complied with Rule 16.04 because the interest of
complainant was fully protected.

Issues: a. Whether or not the administrative complaint is barred by prescription?

b. Whether or not Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP is valid?

Ruling: a. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP provides:

SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or discipline of

attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the professional misconduct.

However, as early as 1967, the Court has held that the defense of prescription does not lie in
administrative proceedings against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, the Court declared
that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.

Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense, respondent raised it only at this late stage.
We presume she was familiar with that rule yet she failed to invoke it at the earliest opportunity. Instead
she opted to insist on her innocence.

b. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive
period for the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court.
It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.

Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines is hereby declared null and void.

Junio vs Grupo

Facts: Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property
in Bohol. For no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited.
Because of this, Junio wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that
he use the money to help defray his children’s educational expenses. It was a personal request to which
Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junio’s
sisters served as Grupo’s household helpers for many years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his
rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration
involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them.
The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Profesisonal Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board
of Governors recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion
for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Held: Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional
capacity and the attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must
be regarded as established.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took
advantage of his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the
standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is
more so in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with
interest at the legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.