MAILAH L.

AWING
LLB III-A

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

1. Eugenio Cortez vs. Atty. Hernando Cortes

A.C. No. 9119 March 12, 2018

Atty. Hernando Cortes represented Eugenio Cortez, complainant, in

an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation. They had
a hand shake agreement on a 12% contingency fee and by way of attorney’s
fees.

In the illegal dismissal case, Eugenio Cortez was awarded one million
one hundred thousand pesos (P1, 100,000). Upon the maturity of the
checks, he and Atty. Cortes went to the bank to deposit the checks. Later,
when the complainant was about to withdraw some cash, Atty. Cortes
ordered the bank teller to hold off the transaction because, allegedly 50% of
the said payment was his, since they had agreed that they split the reward
with a 50-50 basis.

Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando Cortes violated Canon 20

of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which states that “A lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees” and is suspended from practice of
law for three (3) months and ordered to return to complainant the amount
he received in excess of the 12% allowable attorney’s fees.

Atty. Cortes insisted on the fifty-fifty share arrangement knowing that

the complainant is his relative. He thought that because the complainant is
his own relative he would just turn a blind eye and would just agree to his
condition to avoid any conflict between their families.

He treated the legal profession as a trade or business. When he saw

that his client was able to receive a huge sum of money he then increased
his contingency fees from 12% to 50%. That he would earn more by giving
baseless reason, such as the distance, on why he increased his fees and that
he deserve as much as half of his client’s money.

Though under the CPR, it is not stated on how much should a lawyer
be paid but set some factors under Rule 20.01 to guide a lawyer in
determining his fees such as the skill demanded for the case. Lawyers may
interpret the factors set forth by the CPR subjectively rather than objectively.
They may perceive that the time, skill and effort that they exerted in a case
would be worth much more than what it should be. Although rules cannot
specifically state how much a lawyer may charge but for me, it should
impose harsher punishment to avoid lawyers in making a business out of
their profession.
2. Flordeliza Madria vs. Atty. Carlos Rivera
A.C. No. 11256 March 7, 2017

Complainant, Flordeliza Madria, hired Atty. Carlos Rivera for the

annulment of her marriage. Atty. Rivera advised her to just wait for the
resolution of her complaint and assured her that she did not need to appear
in court. Later, Atty. Rivera informed that her petition had been granted and
received a copy of the trial court’s decision.

Believing that the documents were authentic, complainant used the

purport decision and certificate of finality in applying for renewal of her
passport. However, she became the object of an investigation by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner had filed a
complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of
marriage.

Atty. Rivera was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02
and Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the CPR and was disbarred.

It is clear that Atty. Rivera violated the CPR by falsifying the court
decision and the certificate of finality of the decision and blaming his client,
complainant, of making him commit such dishonesty.

Wanting to have easy money or out of habit, respondent accepted

complainant’s case and resorted to falsification of the court’s decision and
certificate of finality of decision. When caught with such deceit, he then
shifted the blame to his own client imposing that she manipulated him in
making such unlawful actions. Not only did he make a mockery of the
administration of justice but he also took advantage of his client wanting to
have a favourable judgement.

The penalty imposed against the respondent is fair because acts made
by him were gross and outright criminal falsification or forgery. Lawyers are
supposed to be the one advocating and promoting for respecting our law and
legal process. People will not respect our justice system and follow the laws
when lawyers are the one blatantly bending our laws. Our justice system
would just be an accessory in the government when they would not imposed
severe penalties against those who do not follow.

3. Gregorio Capinpin vs. Atty. Estanislao Cesa

A.C. No. 6933 July 5, 2017

Complainant, Gregorio Capinpin executed a real estate mortgage on

his two lots in favour of Family Lending Corporation (FLC) as security for a
loan. Due to complainant’s default in payment, FLC, through its president,
initiated foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged properties.
 Respondent, Atty. Estanislao Cesa, without the knowledge of his
client FLC, approached complainant to negotiate the deferment of the
auction sale and the possible settlement of the loan obligation, at a reduced
amount. For this, respondent allegedly demanded payment of professional
fees amounting to one million pesos (P1,000,000) although the complainant
already paid a professional fees amounting to P300,000. Despite such
payments, the auction sale proceeded.

Atty. Estanislao Cesa violated Canon 15, Rule 15.01 and Canon 16,
Rule 16.01 of the CPR. He was then suspended from the practice of law for
one (1) year.

Because of wanting to hit two birds with one stone, respondent while
representing FLC negotiated, without its consent, negotiated against its
adverse party and even blatantly asking for professional fees. It is clear that
he has neither intention nor the best interest of his client. It is an
elementary rule that you cannot represent both parties that are up against
each other however the respondent did without any conscience. He also
thought that he could easily earn double with one case, which is why he
approached the complainant and even represented that he is capable of
influencing the sheriff to defer the auction sale.

The CPR was able to fully address the actions that were done by the
respondent. Even non-lawyers would clearly know that he’s acts were the
one that created the conflict of interest. Clients would lose trust over their
lawyers when our courts would just allow such conflict to happen. Clients
would not divulge the full and truthful information over their own counsel in
fear of using it against them.

4. Isidra Ting-Dumali vs. Atty. Rolando Torres

A.C.No. 5161 April 14, 2004

Complainant is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita

Reynante and Vicente Ting. Atty. Rolando Torres is married to one of the
siblings of Spouses Ting. The Spouses Ting died intestate and left several
parcels of land.

Accordingly, respondent took advantage of his relationship and used

his profession to deprive complainant and her siblings of what was lawfully
due to them. Respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advice
against his wife and his sister-in-law when they executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, wherein the two made it appear that they
were the sole heirs of the late spouses knowing fully well that the same was
false.

Wanting to be wealthy, respondent together with his wife and sister-

in-law conspired in taking all the inheritance from his wife’s parents and not
 leaving anything to the other siblings. Knowing that the siblings have great
trust over him, being a lawyer and a relative, he took advantage of that trust
and having an upper hand on the legal processes, he executed a falsified
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.

His action was a clear violation of Canon 10 of the CPR, when he

allowed his own wife to falsely testify that she had no other siblings other
than one, his sister-in-law. He was also found in violation of Canon 1 and
Canon 7 of the CPR and was ordered to be disbarred and stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.

For not only violating the CPR but also the lawyer’s oath and
falsification of document, the court is correct in imposing a penalty of
disbarment against the respondent. Lawyers are expected to undoubtedly
follow the laws and give no doubt to people that they are fit to practice the
legal profession. They are the frontrunners of our judicial system, and
clearly they should be the one setting up an example and not the one
discouraging our judicial system to the people.

5. Jocelyn Ignacio vs. Atty. Daniel Alviar

A.C. No. 11482 July 17, 2017

Jocelyn Ignacio hired respondent lawyer to handle her son’s case that
was then apprehended and detained by the PDEA. Respondent agreed to
represent her son for a stipulated acceptance fee of P100,000.

Respondent then visited complainant’s son for about 20 minutes.

Complainant informed respondent that her son’s arraignment was set but
replied that he cannot attend said arraignment due to a previous scheduled
hearing. He committed to either find a way to attend the hearing or ask
another lawyer-friend to attend it for him.

On the date of the arraignment, neither respondent nor his promised

alternate appeared. And the worst part is, respondent gave an excuse of
forgetting the date of his own client’s arraignment.

Respondent is held liable for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of

the CPR and ordered to restitute to complainant the amount of 97,000.

By accepting payment or money, it gives rise to an attorney-client

relationship and thus, a lawyer shall have the duty of fidelity to the client’s
cause. Just talking to him for not even half an hour is not an action of a
lawyer who has the best interest of his client. He even forgot the date and
failed to find a replacement to represent his client during arraignment.

The payment received by the respondent is undoubtedly in excess of

quantum merit. The P100,000 is not a reasonable amount for an acceptance
fee where the lawyer only visited his client once and his seat wasn’t even
warm enough when he left.

The rules in CPR is not specific on how much a lawyer may charge
against his clients but only set factors in determining such amount. As what
I stated in case number 1, such factors may view subjectively. It is rather
hard to set up specific amount which all lawyers may charge because cases
they handle have different level of difficulties, subject matter, number of
manpower needed and the time that they may exert would vary.

The CPR, lawyer’s oath and other rules are not there just because we
need to show the public of such flowery words but to follow them whole-
heartedly. Those rules were imposed not for our benefit but to give
assurance to the clients, society and courts that as a lawyer, it shall be
always followed.

Dreaming about becoming a lawyer is easy but making that dream

come true is not. Such dream would require of at least 4 years of your life,
and you should not throw it away just because of money or wanting to be
more at the expense of other people.

Most of the cases discussed were because of personal greed. They all
wanted to have more than what they should have and resorted to making
excessive professional fees and forging documents. No rules could dictate
when people started to act on their greed. They never thought of the
consequences and the effort and time that they would be throwing away in
order to have more paper than the rest of us.

Money is just a piece of paper; you could easily earn money without
taking advantage of anything or any person. It is not worth sacrificing a
dream that you struggled to achieve and most especially not worth of losing
respect to yourself. I wanted to become a lawyer where people, especially my
parents, respect and trust me. No sum of money would be worth it in
exchange of my parents losing their respect and trust on me.