Adm. Case No.

6298 May 27, 2004

(CBD Case No. 03-1071)

FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. EDDIE R. BANSIL, respondent.

Facts: Atty. Bansil has been commissioned as a Notary Public for Guagua, Pampanga. His notarial books covering 2001-2002 were presented
before the Clerk of Court for the renewal of his notarial commission but was returned to him after verification because of limited working space
in the office of the Clerk . The notarial books are required to be brought to the Clerk of Court when needed for inspection/verification of
documents upon request. Complainant wanted to verify some documents, so he sent a request to the respondent; complainant made several follow
ups but Atty. Bansil did not responded to the said letters. For this reason, a complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Eddie R. Bansil for
misconduct and for violation of the Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern and R.A. No. 6713,
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. In defense, Atty. Bansil claims that the
request sent to him by the Clerk of Court was belatedly shown to him by a member of his household and that his notarial books for verification
was lost due to heavy flood.

Issue: Can Atty. Bansil be charged of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held: Yes, Atty. Eddie R. Bansil is GUILTY OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(₱5,000.00), with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Ratio: Even if the subject notarial book was indeed lost by reason of flooding in his place of residence, respondent could have easily written a
letter or called up Clerk of Court to inform him of such loss so that the complainant may be informed thereof in due time.

Respondent further contends that he could have easily helped complainant had the latter personally gone to see him and showed him the
particular document that needed to be verified. Respondent’s contention and inaction smacks of arrogance and dereliction of his duty to bring the
notarial books and documents to the Clerk of Court upon request of the latter. Worse, it speaks of his failure to live up to the exacting standards
of conduct demanded from each and every member of the legal profession as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code
of Professional Ethics.

Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Canon 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics provides that
the conduct of a lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness. Indeed, the obligations of a
member of the bar include the observance of honorable, candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers, fidelity to known and recognized
customs and practices of the profession, and performance of duties to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Thus, respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his
profession or which is unbecoming a member of that profession.
A.C. No. 6711 July 3, 2007

MA. LUISA HADJULA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ROCELES F. MADIANDA, respondent.

Facts: Ma. Luisa Hadjula executed an affidavit charging Atty. Roceles F. Madianda of violating Canon Nos. 15.02 and 21.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleged that she and respondent used to be friends, and that they both work Bureau of Fire Protection
(BFP). According to the complainant, she approached respondent for some legal advice. She narrated that she disclosed personal secrets and
provided the Atty. Madianda of copies of her marriage contract, birth certificate and baptismal certificate. However, Atty. Madianda refused to
handle Hadjula’s case. Complainant alleged that Atty. Madianda acted maliciously because Hadjula was only informed of the refusal after Atty.
Madianda had heard all her secrets. Complainant also alleged that Atty. Madianda demanded a cellular phone in exchange of the complainant's
promotion. This prompted complainant to file a criminal and administrative case against Atty. Madianda. Allegedly, respondent, in retaliation
filed a counter complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Hadjula on the grounds of falsification of public documents and immorality.
Complainant further alleged that the charges are being based on the disclosures she made to the respondent. Hence, this complaint. Complainant
sought suspension and/or disbarment of respondent for the latter's act of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information she revealed in
the course of seeking respondent's legal advice. In defense, respondent denied the allegations and claimed that there is attorney-client relationship
between them.

Issue: Did Atty. Roceles F. Madianda breach the attorney-client privilege communication?

Held: Atty. Roceles F. Madianda is REPRIMANDED and admonished to be circumspect in her handling of information acquired as a result of a
lawyer-client relationship. She is also STERNLY WARNED against a repetition of the same or similar act complained of.

Ratio: As it were, complainant went to respondent, a lawyer who incidentally was also then a friend, to bare what she considered personal secrets
and sensitive documents for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance. The moment complainant approached the then receptive
respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer
certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is, at the
end of the day, not inclined to handle the client's case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal professional
engagement follows the consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the
relationship. As we said in Burbe v. Magulta, -
 A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advise regarding the
former's business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally on
any previous occasion.

It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
handle the case for which his service had been sought.

It a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employments is established.

Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant
or the non-payment of the former's fees.

Dean Wigmore lists the essential factors to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege communication, viz:

(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications
relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by
himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except the protection be waived. 7

The seriousness of the respondent's offense notwithstanding, the Court feels that there is room for compassion, absent compelling evidence that
the respondent acted with ill-will. Without meaning to condone the error of respondent's ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two former
friends becoming bitter enemies and filing charges and counter-charges against each other using whatever convenient tools and data were readily
available. Unfortunately, the personal information respondent gathered from her conversation with complainant became handy in her quest to
even the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear to us that respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in
the process of giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule on confidentiality.

A.C. No. 5798 January 20, 2005

ALEX B. CUETO, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JR., respondent.
Facts: Engr. Alex Cueto engaged the services of Atty. Jimenez for the notarization of a Construction Agreement. Respondent demanded Php
50,000 as notarial fee. Despite his surprise he paid the Php 50,000, Php 30,000 in cash and Php 20,000 by issuing a check. Before the maturity
date of the check, complainant requested respondent not to deposit it for lack of sufficient fund, but Atty. Jimenez still deposited the check,
hence, the check was dishonored. Atty. Jimenez then filed a case against Engr. Cueto for violation of BP22. Cueto alleged that Atty. Jimenez
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics when Atty. Jimenez demanded an excessive notarial fee and
when he filed a criminal case against him so that he could collect the balance of his notarial fee.

Issue: Did Atty. Jimenez violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics for his acts?

Held: Yes, Atty. Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics. “Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby
SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”

Ratio: Complainant’s claim that respondent’s ₱50,000 notarial fee was exorbitant is debatable. As confirmed by the IBP, it is a recognized legal
practice in real estate transactions and construction projects to base the amount of notarial fees on the contract price. Based on the amount
demanded by respondent, the fee represented only 1% of the contract price of ₱5,000,000. It cannot be said therefore that respondent notary
demanded more than a reasonable recompense for his service. We are also convinced that the two contracting parties implicitly agreed on the cost
of Jimenez’s notarial service. It was Cueto’s responsibility to first inquire how much he was going to be charged for notarization. And once
informed, he was free to accept or reject it, or negotiate for a lower amount. In this case, complainant’s concern that the other party to the
construction agreement was the son of respondent notary and that his non-availment of respondent’s service might jeopardize the agreement, was
purely speculative. There was no compulsion to avail of respondent’s service.l^vvphi1.net Moreover, his failure to negotiate the amount of the fee
was an implicit acquiescence to the terms of the notarial service. His subsequent act of paying in cash and in check all the more proved it.
However, we agree with the IBP that respondent’s conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against complainant (when the check
representing the ₱20,000 balance was dishonored for insufficient funds) was highly improper.Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that "[a] lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action
only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud." Likewise, in Canon 14 of the Canons of Professional Ethics it states that, "[c]ontroversies with
clients concerning compensation are to be avoided by the lawyer so far as shall be compatible with his self-respect and with his right to receive
reasonable recompense for his service; and lawsuits with the clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, imposition or
fraud."1a\^/phi1.netTo resort to a suit to recover the balance reveals a certain kind of shameful conduct and inconsiderate behavior that clearly
undermines the tenet embodied in Canon 15 that "[A] lawyer should observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his client." We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully
performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. He should always remind himself that the legal profession is imbued
with public service. Remuneration is a mere incident.

Although we acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover his fees, in a
manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession.
A.C. No. 167 March 9, 1999

ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, complainant,

vs.
PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ, respondent.

Facts: Encarnacion Pascual, the sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. Encarnacion
Pascual gave P1,804.00 to Ibañez as payment of her Social Security System (SSS) contributions in arrears. However, Ibañez did not remit the
amount to SSS. Due to this, complainant filed a complaint for professional misconduct against Ibañez. The complaint alleged that respondent's
misappropriation of Encarnacion Pascual's SSS contributions amounted to a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Seven days later, respondent paid
P1,804.00 to the SSS on behalf of Encarnacion Pascual. Ibañez claimed that his act of accommodating Encarnacion Pascual's request to make
payments to the SSS did not amount to professional misconduct but was rather an act of Christian charity. Ibañez claimed that the acts
complained of were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account of his office as a prosecutor.

Issue: Was the contention of Atty. Ibañez that he should not be charged of professional misconduct because his acts was not done as a practicing
lawyer tenable?

Held: No. The contention of Atty. Ibañez is not tenable. The Supreme Court REPRIMANDS respondent with a STERN WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.

Ratio: It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct
in gross violation of the above canon. The belated payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse his misconduct. While Pascual may not
strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer's handling of funds of a client is applicable. The failure of respondent to
immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross violation of
general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Respondent's claim
that he may not be held liable because he committed such acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing. Canon 6
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their official
tasks. As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, "a lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office. In
fact, his public office should make him more sensitive to his professional obligations because a lawyer's disreputable conduct is more likely to be
magnified in the public's eye. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.