1.
) AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA, HELD:
vs.
ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN,
Facts:
1. An administrative complaint was filed by
Azucena Segovia-Ribaya against Atty.
Bartolome C. Lawsin.
2. It was alleged that they entered into
retainership agreement for the processing of
the registration of a land within the period of 6
months.
3. In connection therewith, respondent received from
complainant the amounts of ₱15,000.00 and
₱39,000.004 to cover for the litigation and land
registration expenses.
4. However, after the lapse of more than three (3) years
from the retainer’s date, complainant alleged that
respondent, without proper explanation, failed to fulfill
his undertaking to register the subject land and deliver
to complainant the certificate of title over the same.
5. She confronted the respondent at his office and also
subsequently sent him two (2) demand letters,5 but all
to no avail. Hence, complainant was prompted to file the
instant administrative complaint.
6. In his Comment,7 respondent admitted that he indeed
received the subject amount from complainant but
averred that after receiving the same, the latter’s
brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount of
₱7,500.00 which the latter purportedly paid to the land
surveyor;
-that he was only prevented to return the balance
because he was maligned by complainant when she
went to his office and there, shouted and called him
names in the presence of his staff.
-that the ownership of the subject land was still under
litigation.
7. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
recommendation. It found out that he violated Rules 16.01
and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) for his failure to properly account for
the money entrusted to him without any adequate
explanation why he could not return the same. It
recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months and ordering
the return of the amount of ₱31,500.00,22 with legal
interest and within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.
ISSUE:
W/N respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code.
1
Yes. With the fact of receipt being admitted by the
respondent, it was then respondent’s obligation to return
the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end,
suffice it to state that complainant’s purported act of
"maligning" respondent does not justify the latter’s failure
to properly account for and return his client’s money upon
due demand. In this case, despite that singular encounter,
respondent had thereafter all the opportunity to return the
subject amount but still failed to do so. Indeed, a lawyer
must deal with his client with professional maturity and
commit himself towards the objective fulfillment of his
responsibilities. . Except only for the retaining lien
exception23 under Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code, the
lawyer should not withhold the property of his client.
Unfortunately, absent the applicability of such exception or
any other justifiable reason therefor, respondent still failed
to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon
16 of the Code which perforce warrants his administrative
liability.
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property
of his client when due or upon demand.1âwphi1 However,
he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
The court also found him liable under Rule 18.03 and
18.04.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. 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.
After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court
observes that respondent did not only accomplish his
undertaking under the retainer, but likewise failed to give
an adequate explanation for such non-performance
despite the protracted length of time given for him to do
so. As such omissions equally showcase respondent’s
non-compliance with the standard of proficiency required
of a lawyer as embodied in the above-cited rules, the Court
deems it apt to extend the period of his suspension from
the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year.
 2.) Antonio Conlu vs.
Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr.,
FACTS:
This case is a Disbarment case with prayer for
damages against Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. on
grounds of gross negligence filed by Antonio Conlu,
his client in a case for Quieting of Title.
The complainant secured the services of Atty.
Aredonia to represent him. The Court rendered a
Decision against the complainant. The Decision was
appealed to the Court of Appeals, however the
same was dismissed for failure of Atty. Aredonia to
file the appeallant’s brief..
Atty. Aredonia seek reconsideration on the
resolution alleging that he did not received copy of
the resolution, but the same was denied because
of the late filing of the motion. According to CA,
there was a valid receipt by the reapondent as
shown by the registry return card with his signature
The private complainant personally filed another
motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied for the reason that the belated filing of Atty.
Aredonia’s first motion for reconsideration binds
Antonio.
Antonio then, appealed to the Supreme Court
but said appeal was denied by the Court.
Thereafter, Antonio filed the disbarment case
before the Office of the Bar Confidant who
rendered a Report/Recommendation to the Court.
The Court in its resolution imposed among others
the filing of an administrative case against Atty.
Aredonia before the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline who found him liable under Rule 1.01,
1.03, and 18.03 of CPR and recommended his
suspension for 6 months
ISSUE:
W/N he vilates CPR
2
HELD:
Yes. The failure to file a brief resulting in the
dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable
negligence.16 This default translates to a violation
of the injunction of Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
respectively providing:
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a 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.
It must be remembered that a retained counsel is
expected to serve the client with competence and
diligence. This duty includes not merely reviewing
the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care and giving
the client sound legal advice, but also properly
representing the client in court, attending scheduled
hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings,
prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting
for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
The lawyer should not be sitting idly by and leave the
rights of the client in a state of uncertainty.
, Atty. Ireneo tried to mislead the appellate court
about the receipt of a copy of its February 10,
1997 Resolution dismissing the appeal in CA-
G.R. CV No. 50075. He denied personally
receiving such copy, but the CA found and
declared that he himself received said copy. The
CA arrived at this conclusion thru the process of
comparing Atty. Ireneo’s signature appearing in
the pleadings with that in the registry return card.
Both signatures belong to one and the same
person. Needless to stress, Atty. Ireneo had
under the premises indulged in deliberate
falsehood, contrary to the self-explanatory
prescriptions of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon
10, Rule 10.01, which provide:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCEDURES.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice. (Emphasis supplied.)
Also, Ireneo was determined all along not to
submit a comment from administrative case
against him and, in the process, delay the
resolution of the instant case. By asking several
extensions of time to submit one, but without the
intention to so submit, Ireneo has effectively
trifled with the Court’s processes, if not its
liberality. This cannot be tolerated. It cannot be
allowed to go unpunished, if the integrity and
orderly functioning of the administration of justice
is to be maintained. And to be sure, Atty. Ireneo
can neither defeat this Court’s jurisdiction over
him as a member of the bar nor evade
administrative liability by the mere ruse of
concealing his whereabouts.17 Manifestly, he has
fallen short of the diligence required of every
member of the Bar. The pertinent Canon of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT
EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER HIS DUTY
TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
xxxx
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 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes. (Emphasis
supplied.)1avvphil
3
3.) Felipe C. Dagala VS. Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. And Atty. Amado T.
Adquilen
FACTS:
Complainant Dagala, assisted by Atty. Quesada filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission,
San Fernando City, La Union a Complaint for illegal
dismissal, overtime pay, separation pay, damages
and attorney’s fees against Capitol Allied Trading &
Transport on November 8, 1994.
However, the case was dismissed for failure of
complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear during the
two scheduled mandatory conference hearings
despite due notice.
Thereafter, complainant engaged the services of
Atty. Adquilen, a former Labor Arbiter, who re-filed
his labor case. Similarly, the case was dismissed
due to the parties’ failure to submit their respective
position papers.
Complainant and Atty. Adquilen refiled the case for
a third time on August 27, 1996.During the pendency
of the case, the representative of Capitol allegedly
offered the amount of P74,000.00 as settlement of
complainant’s claim, conditioned on the submission
of the latter’s position paper. Atty. Adquilen,
however, failed to submit one, resulting in the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of interest and
failure to prosecute.
On July 11, 1997, complainant this time assisted by
Atty. Imelda L. Picar filed a motion for
reconsideration from the February 27, 1997 Order,
which was treated as an appeal and transmitted to
the NLRC-National Capital Region. However, the
NLRC-NCR dismissed the same in a Resolution for
having been filed out of time, adding that the
negligence of counsel binds the client.
Due to the foregoing, Atty. Picar sent separate
letters dated November 18, 1998 to respondents,
informing them that complainant is in the process of
pursuing administrative cases against them before
the Court. The Court directed respondents to
comment on the Complaint within ten days from
notice. However, despite notices and the extension
granted, Atty. Adquilen failed to comply with the
directive and the subsequent show-cause
resolutions. He also claimed that when he was
informed of the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, he advised complainant to re-file the case
with the assistance of another lawyer as he had to
attend to his duties as Chairman of the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino for the Second District of La
Union Province.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Quesada should be held
administratively liable for gross negligence in
handling complainant’s labor case
RULING: The Court emphasized that the
relationship between a lawyer and his client is one
imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this
regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would
be evermindful of their cause and accordingly
exercise the required degree of diligence in handling
their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. He is likewise expected to act with honesty in
all his dealings, especially with the courts.
These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17 and
Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code. x x x
CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
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. x x x x
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
In the present case, the Court finds Atty. Quesada
to have violated the foregoing Rules and Canons.
4
Primarily, Atty, Quesada failed to exercise the
required diligence in handling complainant’s case
by his failure to justify his absence on the two (2)
mandatory conference hearings in NLRC Case
No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 despite due notice, which
thus resulted in its dismissal. It bears stressing
that a retained counsel is expected to serve the
client with competence and diligence and not to
sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a
state of uncertainty. To this end, he is oblige to
attend scheduled hearings or conferences,
prepare and file the required pleadings,
prosecute the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urge their termination without
waiting for the client or the court to prod him or
her to do so.46
Atty. Quesada’s failure to attend the scheduled
conference hearings, despite due notice and
without any proper justification, exhibits his
inexcusable lack of care and diligence in
managing his client’s cause in violation of Canon
17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code.
Moreover, Atty. Quesada acted with less candor
and good faith in the proceedings before the IBP-
CBD when he denied the existence of any lawyer-
client relationship between him and complainant,
and claimed that the labor case was handled by
another lawyer,47 despite his previous
48
admission before the Court of having accepted
complainant's case. To add a perusal of the
complaint49 dated November 8, 1994 in NLRC
Case No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 reveals that Atty.
Quesada signed the same as counsel for
complainant.50
Respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is found
guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01
of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was
suspended for 1 year.
On the other hand, the administrative complaint
against respondent Atty. Amado T. Adquilen is
hereby dismissed in view of his supervening death.
 4.) DELIA LIM, vs. ATTY.
AQUILINO MEJICA,
FACTS:
 On July 16, 2008, Atty. Mejica filed a
criminal action for grave oral defamation
against Lim ( Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern
Samar)
 He alleged that Lim uttered against him
the following slanderous words at the Session
Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oras:
"HI AGUS BALDADO NAG KIHA KAN ATTY
AKI MEJICA HA IBP UG YANA HI ATTY.
MEJ[I]CA SUSPENDIDO HIT IYA KA
ABOGADO SAKOP HIN UNOM KA BULAN,
IPAN NUMAT NIYO" |||(Mr. Agus Baldado
filed a case against Atty. Mejica before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and
now Atty. Mejica is suspended from practice of
his profession as a lawyer for a period of six
(6) months, you relay this information
 Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II
issued a Resolution dismissing the complaint
of Atty. Mejica for lack of probable cause.
 A Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was
filed, but the same was denied in a Resolution
 While Atty. Mejica's MR was still pending
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
(OPP), he filed on March 31, 2009, for the
second time, the same complaint before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Samar.
 MCTC issued an Order 7 dismissing the
complaint of Atty. Mejica on the ground that
the same had already prescribed.
 Consequently, Lim filed the instant case
alleging that Atty. Mejica deliberately
committed forum shopping when he filed the
same complaint with the same attachments
with the MCTC during the pendency of his MR
to the dismissal of his complaint before the
OPP.
 Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the IBP issued an Order 10 directing
Atty. Mejica to submit his answer to Lim's
complaint within 15 days from receipt of the
order.
5
 Atty. Mejica argued that the filing of the
case before the MCTC pending the resolution
of his MR before the OPP was made in good
faith. He argued that he did not know that an
oral defamation case may be filed directly with
the MCTC
 According to Atty. Mejica, he consulted
his friend, Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, a
Public Attorney's Office lawyer. He alleged
that he was advised, that an oral defamation
case is not subject to preliminary investigation
and as such he could file the same directly with
the MCTC|||
 He argued that since the criminal
complaint was filed before the OAPP, its
resolution for probable cause would not be a
bar for the court's judicial determination of
probable cause considering that in case of oral
defamation, preliminary investigation is not
required|||
 IBP-CBD issued a Report and
Recommendation 18 finding
Atty. Mejica liable for violating Rule 12.02 of
Canon 12 of the CPR, and recommended that
he be suspended for a period of six (6)
months.
 The IBP Board of Governors, however,
modified the penalty by reducing the
suspension to three (3) months.|||
 he IBP Board of Governors, however,
after considering this Court's previous
sanctions imposed against Atty. Mejica,
increased his suspension to five (5) years
Issue: whether the instant disbarment
complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to
suspend Atty. Mejica from the practice of law
for five (5) years for violation of the CPR.
Held:
Court held that there is no violation of
the rule against non-forum. The test for
determining forum shopping is whether in
the two (or more) cases pending, there is an
identity of parties, rights or causes of action,
and relief sought."
 In the present case, the Court finds that that would promote public confidence in the
the second requisite of forum shopping does integrity of the legal profession
not exist since there is no identity of relief.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
The complaint before the OAPP seeks for Resolution No. XXI-2014-595 dated
the finding by the prosecutor of probable September 27, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of
cause against Lim for Grave Oral the Philippines Board of Governors is
Defamation so that the latter could be held hereby SET ASIDE.|||
for trial. Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No.
The Court, however, finds Atty.
(0)2009-03, the complaint seeks for the
Aquilino Mejica to have violated Canon 10 of
conviction of Lim. in the present case, the
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
exercise of the OPP of its investigative
hereby meted out the penalty
power to determine the existence of
ofSUSPENSION from the practice of law
probable cause to the complaint filed by
for SIX (6) MONTHS with WARNING that a
Arty. Mejica is likewise different and distinct
similar offense by him will be dealt with more
from the power of the court to hold Lim for
severely.|||
trial for the offense charged. constitute as a
valid and final judgment because his duty,
should he find probable cause to prosecute
the respondent, is to file the appropriate
information before the proper court. 5.) JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT, ,
v. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES
AND ATTY. TEODORO B.
However, Atty. Mejica is liable for DELARMENTE,
violation of Canon 10
Nonetheless, the Court finds that Facts:
Atty. Mejica failed to exercise candor and
Complainant is a former Filipino citizen who
courtesy to the court when he failed to
subsequently became a naturalized British
inform the same of the pendency of his MR
citizen. On July 9, 2011, complainant's 2 sons,
before the OPP in connection with the same
Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo Balingit, who
cause of action. Likewise, records show that
were on board their respective motorcycles,
he failed to withdraw his MR before the OPP
figured in a head-on collision with the car driven
despite the subsequent filing of his
by David A. Alizadeh . As a result, a case was
complaint before the MCTC.
filed against David.
Although it is the MCTC that has
Complainant engaged the legal services of
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by
respondents in the filing of the separate civil suit
Atty. Mejica, he made a mockery of the
for damages and an administrative case against
judicial process and further eroded public
David.
confidence in lawyers when he ignored the
proceedings he initiated in the OPP. Atty. Cervantes prepared and signed an
Lawyers should always live up to the Agreement embodying the terms of respondents'
ethical standards of the legal profession as engagement. Addressed to Kristopher, Carlo,
embodied in the [CPR]. Public confidence in and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr., but the same
law and in lawyers may be eroded by the did not sign the said agreement.
irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer
should act and comport himself in a manner

6
Complainant paid the sum of P45,000.00 as
partial acceptance fee receipt issued by Atty.
Delarmente, Atty. Cervantes allegedly received
P10,000.00 from Imelda Balingit (Imelda),
complainant's daughter-in-law, without issuing
any receipt. Howeve, respondent failed to file the
civil action.
Complainant and the representatives of David
entered into compromise agreement wherein
they agreed to settle and David greed to pay
P1,000,000.00 for the dismissal of the case. Atty.
Cervantes, upon discovering that complainant
entered into a Compromise Agreement, attended
the November 9, 2011 hearing and demanded
10% of the amount of the compromise as
attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as appearance fee
from complainant. Complainant refused on the
ground that the compromise was entered Atty.
Cervantes sent a demand letter to complainant
seeking payment of P100,000.00 as attorney's
fees, representing 10% of the amount of the
compromise, and appearance fee of P5,000.00
for his attendance in the November 9, 2011
hearing. As complainant still refused to pay, Atty.
Cervantes filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against complainant, his wife, and his sons, as
well as a complaint for deportation with the
Bureau of Immigration, on the ground that
complainant and his family are undesirable British
aliens.
Complainant then filed the present disbarment
case against respondent before IBP.
Atty. Cervantes in his answer alleged that he
failed to file the separate civil action because he
has not received the acceptance and docket fees
to file the case.
IBP found respondents guilty og grave
misconduct and recommended their suspension
for 6 months.
Issue:
Wether or not respondents violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
7
Ruling:
It is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe
fidelity to their clients' cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
them.
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may
come into his profession.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
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.
Respondents clearly transgressed the foregoing
rules when they failed and refused to file the
separate civil action for damages against David
despite their receipt of payment and the relevant
documents from complainant. We cannot give
credence to Atty. Cervantes' defense that
because complainant did not pay the requisite
filing and acceptance fees, he was not able to file
the separate civil case for damages. The receipt
Atty. Delarmente issued clearly indicated that the
sum of P45,000.00 paid by the complainant
covers the acceptance and filing fees for the civil
suit.38chanrobleslaw
The court also found them liable under Rule 20.4.
Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility advises that xxx A lawyer shall
avoid controversies with clients concerning their
compensation and to resort to judicial action only
to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. xxx It is
improper for a lawyer to impose additional
professional fees on his client that were never
mentioned nor agreed upon the time of the
engagement of his services. In the case at bar,
Atty. Cervantes demanded, as success fee for the
criminal case and the Compromise Agreement
was entered in the proceedings, P5, 000.00
appearance fee and 10% of the settlement. The
Compromise Agreement was outside the scope
of respondents’ engagement. Matters of fees
present an irreconcilable conflict of interests
between a client and his lawyer. The Court held
that the respondent is guilty of being remiss in
their duties as counsel for complainant and that
when a lawyer accepts a case he undertakes to
give his utmost attention, skill, and competence
to it. His client has the right to expect that he will
discharge his duties diligently and exert his best
efforts, learning, and ability to prosecute or
defend his client's cause with reasonable
dispatch.
Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato
M. Cervantes are hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the
practice of law for six (6) months. Both
are STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely. They are also DIRECTED to return to
complainant the amount of P45,000.00. Finally,
respondents are DIRECTED to report to this
Court the date of their receipt of this Decision to
enable this Court to determine when their
suspension shall take effect.
6.) SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA
JACINTO, VS. ATTY. EMELIE P.
BANGOT, JR.,
Facts:
Sps. Jacinto owns a parcel of land covered by
OCT No. P-3387. Some owners of a land, which
is adjacent to the land of the spouses, insituted a
petition (to reconstitute a lost title) before the RTC
of Cagayan de Oro. A court order was issued by
the RTC which caused a private survey team to
be deployed and to survey the owners' land.
While doing the survey, the said team attempted
to enter and survey Sps Jacinto's land. Thus, the
Sps. Jacinto sought legal assistance from Atty.
Bangot. Atty. Bangot
8
told them that he would be initiating a case for
certiorari in their behalf to nullify the order for the
reconstitution of the lost title filed before the RTC;
insinuated that one of their lots would be his
attorney's fees.
Atty. Bangot unilaterally prepared a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which he
also made Sps Jacinto to sign it. They did not
read the agreement because of their full trust to
the respondent.
Upon arriving at their residence, they discovered
that the technical detail specified in the MOA is a
is a different lot from which they agreed upon.
That lot was already allocated to one of their
children. Plus, the agreed area was increased to
300 meters.
Aggrieved, they decided to see Atty. Bangot to
revoke the MOA and pay him, instead, in cash,
but the latter refused. They were even challenged
to file an appropriate case against him. More to
the spouses' surprise,Atty. Bangot only filed a
Manifestation which is not a preparatory pleading
for certiorari.
An administrative complaint was filed against
Atty. Bangot by the spouses.
In his defense, he averred, among others, that the
complaint was just a harassment tactic to
intimidate him from seeking judicial remedies to
settle their dispute on the validity of the MOA. And
that the lot, in the form of attorney’s fees will be
paid on a contingent bases.
IBP issued a resolution on the complaint and
recommended that Atty. Bangot be suspended
from the practice of law for 2 years.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Bangot violated the Lawyer’s Oath; and
CPR
HELD:
YES. It was not disputed that only the filing of the
two-paged Manifestation for Information
constituted the respondent's rendition of
professional services for the complainants.
Although he did claim that the filing of the
Manifestation for Information had prevented any
intrusion on their property, thereby fulfilling his
end of the contract,13 the worth of such minimal
effort was exaggerated and disproportionate
when taken in the context of the attorney's fees controversies with clients concerning his
being Lot No. 37925-G with 300 square meters in compensation and shall resort to judicial action
area. The two-paged Manifestation for only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.
Information was not even the procedural
We have said time and again, and this we cannot
precursor of the promised petition for certiorari.
overemphasize, that the Law is neither a trade
Moreover, he did not actually file the petition for
nor a craft but a profession whose basic ideal is
certiorari as he had promised. And, lastly, he did
to render public service and to secure justice for
nothing more after filing the Manifestation for
those who seek its aid. If the Law has to remain
Information. He certainly transgressed the
an honorable profession and has to attain its
Lawyer's Oath by receiving property of a
basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not
substantial value from the complainants after
only master its tenets and principles but should
having made them believe that he could ensure
also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity to
their land from intrusion by third parties. He took
such tenets and principles.19 The respondent's
advantage of them who had reposed their full behavior and deceit demonstrated a preference
trust and confidence in his ability to perform the for self-gain that transgressed his sworn duty of
task by virtue of his being a lawyer. He was
fidelity, loyalty and devotion to his clients' cause.
definitely bent on obtaining Lot No. 37925-G than
His betrayal of his clients' trust besmirched the
in protecting the complainants' interest in their
honorable name of the Law Profession. These
property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their
considerations justify suspending him from the
offer to give cash for his attorney's fees instead of practice of law.
the land. We sadly note in this connection that his
changing the property ostensibly agreed upon WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS
with the bigger lot as payment for his legal respondent ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR.
services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the
guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and of the
relationship. He maintained the deceit by Code of Professional Responsibility; SUSPENDS
ultimately enforcing the MOA against them him from the practice of law for five (5) years
through the action for specific performance.
effective upon notice of this decision, with
warning that sterner sanctions will be meted on
The agreement between them was not a him for a similar offense; and DECLARES that he
contingent fee where a much higher
is not entitled to recover any attorney's fees from
compensation is allowed in consideration of the the complainants.
risk that the lawyer may get nothing should the
suit failed. In this case, the Moa indicates that the
payment of respondent’s fee by way of real
propertyis being made immediately effective
upon execution of the agreement.

He also breached the following canons of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness

and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his clients.

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 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

Canon 20- A lawyer shall charge only fair and

reasonable fees. Rule 20.4 A lawyer shall avoid