Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

LOTHAR SCHULZ vs. ATTY. MARCELO G.

FLORES
A.C. No. 4219, December 8, 2003

FACTS:

Lothar Schulz, a German national filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Marcelo G. Flores. He alleged that he engaged the services of respondent for the
purposes of filing a complaint against Wilson Ong for revocation of contract and
damages for the latter’s failure to deliver the jeep he sold to complainant within the
stipulated period. Respondent advised him that there was no need to refer the complaint
for barangay conciliation. Three months later, respondent instructed him to file his
complaint with the Lupon Tagapayapa of Tabuc-tubig, Dumaguete City. Wilson Ong
refused to appear at the conciliation hearings, arguing that the Lupon of Tabuc-tubig had
no jurisdiction over his person because he was a resident of Barangay
Banilad. Complainant thus brought the complaint before the Barangay Captain of
Banilad. By that time, however, complainant learned that Wilson Ong had already filed a
case for Specific Performance against him before the RTC. Complainant argued that
respondent’s inordinate delay in acting on his case resulted in his being defendant rather
than a complainant against Wilson Ong.

Complainant also charged respondent with collecting excessive and unreasonable fees
and of unjustifiably refusing to return his files. He undertook to pay respondent
attorney’s fees of P5,000.00 if the case does not reach the court, and P10,000.00
attorney’s fees and P500.00 appearance fees if it reaches the court. This
notwithstanding, respondent alleged in the Answer with Counterclaim which he prepared
on behalf of complainant that his attorney’s fees was P50,000.00 and appearance fee
was P1,000.00 per hearing. When complainant questioned him about this, respondent
explained that it was Wilson Ong who will be made to pay for the said fees. This,
complainant claimed, showed respondent’s deceit and lack of candor in his dealings with
his parties in court.

Further, complainant alleged that since he suspected respondent of not protecting his
interest. He instructed respondent to withdraw his appearance as his counsel after the
filing of the answer. Thereafter, he asked respondent to return the amount of
P12,000.00 out of the total of P17,000.00 that he has paid to the latter, inasmuch as the
amount of P5,000.00 should be sufficient compensation for the minimal services
rendered by him. Respondent, however, refused to return the amount to complainant
and, instead, demanded additional fees. Complainant’s new counsel wrote a formal
demand letter to respondent which, however, was ignored. This prompted complainant
to file a complaint with the Lupon Tagapayapa of Barangay Bantayan where respondent
resided. After the parties failed to reach a settlement, complainant instituted an action
for sum of money against respondent.

ISSUE:

Was there failure on respondent’s duty to his client?


RULING:

Respondent was presumed to be knowledgeable on the laws, but in this case, it turned
out that Atty. Flores knew too little of the provisions and application of PD No. 1508
which mandates that all disputes, except those specifically cited (the dispute between
Lothar Schulz and Wilson Ong not included), between and among residents of the same
city or municipality should be brought first under the system of barangay conciliation. He
was not all certain if the complaint of Lothar Schulz falls under PD No. 1508 or not. As
Lothar Schulz narrated, Atty. Flores told him at first that there was no need for his
complaint to be coursed through the barangay authorities.
Furthermore, Respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence required of
every member of the Bar. The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility state:

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

Likewise, respondent erred in not returning complainant’s money despite demands after
his failure to file the case and his devious act of compelling complainant to sign a
document stating that he has no financial obligation to complainant in exchange of the
return of complainant’s papers. This conduct violated the following Canon:

CANON 15. – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY


IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

Rule 16.03. – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of client when due or
upon demand.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent Atty. MARCELO G. FLORES is


found guilty of negligence and incompetence, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately. He is ordered to RETURN to
complainant Lothar Schulz the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) with
legal interest from the date of promulgation of this Resolution, and all papers which came
into his custody as a result of having served as counsel for said
complainant. Respondent is further STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same
or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SPOUSES JACINTO v. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR.
A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016,
Lawyer Suspended for 5 years for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath

FACTS:

Complainants sought the services of respondent in a case for reconstitution of title.

Respondent agreed if the complainants will give him a portion of their land as his fee for
filing a petition for certiorari to nullify the order for the reconstitution of the lost title. The
complainants agreed to give him a 250 square meter lot. Respondent subsequently
asked them to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which he was given a 300
square meter lot for his services. When they noticed this change, complainants asked for
an amendment of the MOA. Respondent refused. Complainants also found out that
instead of filing a petition for certiorari, respondent filed only a Manifestation for
Information.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainants decided to bring their complaint against the
respondent.

In due course, the IBP found the complaint against the respondent meritorious, and
recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year
for his unfair and injudicious treatment of the complainants as his clients.

ISSUE:

Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings with
the complainants?

RULING:

We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer’s Oath and his ethical
duties as an attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings
with his clients.

“A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness in dealing with the client, and shall
only charge fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. In drawing up the terms of his
professional engagement, he should not practice deceit. The clients are entitled to
rescind the written agreement for his professional services if the terms thereof
contravened the true agreement of the parties.”

The MOA which respondent made the complainants sign was not a contingency fee
agreement, but an agreement for the immediate acquisition of their property as his
attorney‘s fees. Moreover, the value of the said land was much more than the value of
the services he has rendered which was only the filing of a Manifestation.

The circumstances in this case have established that the respondent was deceitful,
dishonest and unreasonable in his dealings with the complainants as his clients. He thus
violated his Lawyer’s Oath, whereby he vowed, among others, to do no falsehood, and
not to consent to the doing of any falsehood, as well as not to delay any man’s cause for
money or malice but to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his
knowledge and discretion “with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients. 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 controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial
action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. was penalized with suspension from the practice of law for
five (5) years.
BARNACHEA vs. ATTY. EDWIN T. QUIOCHO
A.M. No. 5925, March 11, 2003
Code of Professional Responsibility

FACTS:

Respondent had not been in the private practice of the law for quite some time.
However, in September 2001, he decided to revive his legal practice with some
associates. Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent for the latter to
cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 334411 previously owned by her sister, Lutgarda Amor D.
Barnachea. The latter sold said property to complainant under an unnotarized deed of
absolute sale.

Complainant drew and issued BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052304 in the amount of
P11,280.00 and BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052305 in the amount of P30,000.00, for
the expenses for said transfer and in payment for respondent’s legal services.

Respondent encashed the checks. However, despite the lapse of almost two months,
respondent failed to secure title over the property in favor of complainant. The latter
demanded that respondent refund to her the amount of P41,280.00 and return the
documents which she earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent failed to comply
with said demands. On November 1, 2001, complainant received a letter from
respondent informing her that he had failed to cause the transfer of the property under
her name and that he was returning the documents and title she had entrusted to him
and refunding to her the amount of P41,280.00 through his personal check No. DIL
0317787. Said check was drawn against his account with the Bank of Commerce in the
amount of P41,280.00 and was postdated December 1, 2001. Respondent told
complainant that he needed more time to fund the check. However, respondent failed to
fund the check despite the demands of complainant.

On the other hand, respondent alleged that his failure to transfer the title of the property
under the name of the complainant was caused by his difficulty in making good the
claimed amount, compounded by his affliction with diabetes and the consequent loss of
sight of his right eye.

ISSUE:

Is respondent guilty of the said accusations?

RULING:

The Court is led to believe that respondent’s failure to cause the transfer of the title of the
property under the name of complainant was due to a financial problem that beset him
shortly after he received the checks from complainant. It can easily be inferred from
respondent’s letter that he used complainant’s money to alleviate if not solve his financial
woes. What compounded respondent’s unethical conduct was his drawing of a personal
check and delivering the same to complainant without sufficient funds in his bank
account to cover the check. Even as he promised to fund his account with the drawee
bank, respondent failed to do so when the check became due.

Respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho is found guilty of violation of Canons 15 and 16 of


the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
One (1) Year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to restitute to the complainant the full
amount of P41,280.00 within ten (10) days from notice hereof. Respondent is further
DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of said amount within ten (10) days
from said payment. If Respondent fails to restitute the said amount within the aforesaid
period, he shall be meted an additional suspension of three (3) months for every month
or fraction thereof of delay until he shall have paid the said amount in full. In case a
subsidiary penalty of suspension for his failure to restitute the said amount shall be
necessary, respondent shall serve successively the penalty of his one year suspension
and the subsidiary penalty. This is without prejudice to the right of the complainant to
institute the appropriate action for the collection of said amount.
SUSPENSION
CASES
In
LEGAL ETHICS
Prepared by:
Hazel T. Panganiban
3rd year, PCU College of LAW

Submitted to:
Attorney Natividad Roma

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen