CANON 16

RULE 16.04

Rosario Junio v Atty. Salvador M. Grupo

AC No. 5020, December 18, 2011

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for
malpractice and gross misconduct. Complainant Rosario N. Junio alleged that she engaged the services
of respondent then a private practitioner, for the redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 20394 registered in the name of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes,
and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol. Complainant entrusted to respondent the amount of
P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the redemption of the aforesaid property. Respondent, however, for no
valid reason did not redeem the property; as a result of which the right of redemption was lost and the
property was eventually forfeited. Despite repeated demands made by complainant and without
justifiable cause, respondent had continuously refused to refund the money entrusted to him.
In his Answer, petitioner admitted receiving the amount in question for the purpose for which it
was given. After he failed to redeem the property, he requested the complainant that he be allowed, in
the meantime, to avail of the money because he had an urgent need for some money a himself to help
defray his children's educational expenses. According to respondent, it was a personal request and a
private matter between respondent and complainant. Respondent also alleged that he executed a
promissory note for the amount. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains
that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junio’s sisters served as Grupo’s household
helpers for many years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely
gratuitous or “an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration involved.” He concluded that there was
no atty-client relationship existing between them.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Grupo violated Rule 16.04 of the CPR and whether or not the attorney-
client relationship existed

Ruling: YES

1. Although complainant denied having loaned the money to respondent, the fact is that complainant
accepted the promissory note given her by respondent on December 12, 1996. In effect,
complainant consented to and ratified respondent's use of the money. Respondent's liability is thus
not for misappropriation or embezzlement but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless
the latter's interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. In this case,
respondent's liability is compounded by the fact that not only did he not give any security for the
payment of the amount loaned to him but that he has also refused to pay the said amount. His claim
that he could not pay the loan "because circumstances . . . did not allow it" and that, because of the
passage of time, "he somehow forgot about his obligation" only underscores his blatant disregard of
his obligation which reflects on his honesty and candor.

2. As explained in Hilado v. David: To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the
client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion… It is not
necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for… If a person, in respect
to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity
with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established…

WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and orders him suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month and
to pay to complainant within 30 days from notice, the amount of P25,000.00 with interest at the
legal rate, computed from December 12, 1996.

CANON 17

Ma. Libertad Sj Cantiller v Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano

180 SCRA 246 (1989)

Facts:
Humberto V. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll
No. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
An action for ejectment was filed against Peregrina Cantiller. The court issued a decision against
the latter. A notice to vacate was then issued against Cantiller.
Cantiller then asked the respondent to handle their case. The complainant was made to sign by
respondent what she described as a “hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly
composed petition for annulment of judgment”.
The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Manila. Respondent demanded
from the complainant P l,000.00 as attorney’s fee. However the judge of the said court asked the
respondent to withdraw as counsel by reason of their friendship.
Later, Cantiller paid Potenciano P2,000.00 as demanded by the latter which was allegedly
needed to be paid to another judge who will issue the restraining order but eventually Potenciano
did not succeed in locating the judge.
Complainant paid P 10,000.00 to Potenciano by virtue of the demand of the latter. The amount
was allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer’s Office of Pasig as purchase price of the
apartment and P 1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit needed in order for the complainant to
retain the possession of the property. But later on Cantiller found out that the amounts were not
necessary to be paid. A demand was made against Potenciano but the latter did not answer and the
amounts were not returned.
Contrary to Potenciano’s promise that he would secure a restraining order, he withdrew his
appearance as counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as
replacement. Hence, the order to vacate was eventually enforced and executed.

Issue: Whether or not Potenciano breached his duties as counsel of Cantiller.

Ruling:
When a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a
client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. The
acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interests.
Respondent had knowledge beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge to withdraw
his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent
took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this fact.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with
their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter
of public interest.