CASE DIGESTS

Legal Ethics

CANONS 14-22
CHAPTER 4 THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

I. Introduction

Responsibility of a Lawyer due to his Clients

CASE LIST
1. Foodsphere v. Mauricio – Violation of CANON 13
2. Suspension of Atty. Bagubayao – Violation of CANON 13
3. Hilado v. David
4. Nakpil v. Valdes
5. Hornilla v. Salunat
6. Northwestern University v. Arquillo
7. Quiambao v. Bamba
8. Heirs of Falame v. Baguio
9. Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez
10. Licuanan v. Melo

CASE 1

Parties
Complainant: Foodsphere Incorporated
Respondent: Atty. Melanio Mauricio

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

CASE 3

Parties
Complainant: Blandina Hilado
Respondent: Jose David, et al.

FACTS:

CASE 4
NAKPIL v. VALDES
Complainant: Imelda Napkil
Respondent: Atty. Carlos Valdes

DOCTRINE:
The relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity
and good faith.

FACTS:

Herein respondent is a business consultant, accountant and a lawyer of Jose Napkil. Sometime in 1965,
Napkil became interested in purchasing a summer residence, but since he lack in funds, he requested the
respondent to purchase the said property in trust. Subsequently, the respondent obtained two (2) loans from
a bank, which he used to purchase and renovate the property.
Sometime in 1975, Jose Napkil died. Thereafter, respondent acted as counsel for Imelda Napkil for the
settlement of Jose’s estate.

ISSUES:
1) W/N the respondent violated CANON 17 of the CPR.
2) W/N the respondent is guilty of representing conflict of interest.

HELD:

1) Yes. CANON 17 of the CPR provides that “a lawyer owes fidelity to his client’s cause and enjoins
him to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.” In this case, the respondent