ASSIGNMENT IN LEGAL ETHICS

CANONS 18-22 (Memorize)

Cases:

1. SOLIDON V. MACALALAD, A.C. NO. 8158, FEBRUARY 24, 2010

2. SPOUSES ARANDA V. ATTY. ELAYDA, A. C. No. 7907, DECEMBER
15, 2010
3. BRIONES V. JIMENEZ, A.C. NO. 6691, APRIL 27, 2007
4. RURAL BANK OF CALAPE V. FLORIDO, A.C. NO. 5736, JUNE 18,
2010
5. MIRANDA V. CARPIO, A.C. NO. 6281, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
6. SANTECO V. AVANCE, A.C. NO. 5834, FEBRUARU 22, 2011
7. BUNSIONG YAO V. AURELIO, A.C. NO. 7023, MARCH 30, 2006
8. FRANCISCO ET. AL. V. PORTUGAL, Adm. Case No. 6155, March 14,
2006
9. TEVES-MACARUMO V. MACURUMO, JANUARY 12, 2013

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

RULE 18.01A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if,
with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who
is competent on the matter.

RULE 18.02A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

RULE 18.03A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

RULE 18.04A 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.

ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMIL E.

MACALALAD, respondent.
The Facts

While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October 2005, Atty. Macalalad was
introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-
Borata(Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the
judicial titling of a parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and
owned by Atty. Solidon's relatives. For a consideration of Eighty Thousand
Pesos (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to be completed within a
period of eight (8) months. Atty. Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the certificate
of title to the property.

Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over the property
sought to be titled up to the present time.

The Court's Ruling

We agree with the IBP's factual findings and legal conclusions.

In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is

preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to
discharge.8 We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully
satisfied that the complainant's evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the
required quantum of proof in proving Atty. Macalalad's negligence. CTacSE

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for

the rule on negligence and states:

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of
the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is consideredper se a
violation.

We consider, too, that other motivating factors — specifically, the monetary

consideration and the fixed period of performance — should have made it more
imperative for Atty. Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate
communication with his clients. He had been given initial payment and should
have at least undertaken initial delivery of his part of the engagement. 

We further find that Atty. Macalalad's conduct refutes his claim of willingness
to perform his obligations. If Atty. Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition,
he could have acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to enable
him to file the petition even pending the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
investigation. As matters now stand, he did not take any action to initiate
communication. These omissions unequivocally point to Atty. Macalalad's
lack of due care that now warrants disciplinary action.

In addition to the above finding of negligence, we also find Atty. Macalalad

guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
requires a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. In this
case, Atty. Macalalad did not immediately account for and promptly return the
money he received from Atty. Solidon even after he failed to render any legal
service within the contracted time of the engagement. 22

The Penalty

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM WITH

MODIFICATION Resolution No. XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008 of the
Board of Governors of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. We impose on
Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.03 and Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective upon finality of this
Decision. Atty. Macalalad is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Macalalad is also ORDERED to RETURN to Atty. Elmer C. Solidon the

amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve percent
(12%) per annum from the date of promulgation of this Decision until the full
amount is returned. 

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA, petitioners, vs. ATTY.

EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA, respondent.
In the Complaint dated August 11, 2006, 1 the spouses Aranda alleged that
Atty. Elayda's handling of their case was "sorely inadequate, as shown by his
failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure and evidence," 2 to wit:

That on February 14, 2006 hearing of the said case, the case was ordered
submitted for decision [the spouses Aranda] and [Atty. Elayda] did not appear;
certified copy of the order is attached as Annex "C";

That the order setting this case for hearing on February 14, 2006 was sent only
to [Atty. Elayda] and no notice was sent to [the spouses Aranda] that is they
were unaware of said hearing and [Atty. Elayda] never informed them of the
setting;

That despite receipt of the order dated February 14, 2006, [Atty. Elayda] never
informed them of such order notwithstanding the follow-up they made of their
case to him;

That [Atty. Elayda] did not lift any single finger to have the order dated
February 14, 2006 reconsidered and/or set aside as is normally expected of a
counsel devoted to the cause of his client;

That in view of the inaction of [Atty. Elayda] the court naturally rendered a
judgment dated March 17, 2006 adverse to [the spouses Aranda] which copy
thereof was sent only to [Atty. Elayda] and [the spouses Aranda] did not receive
any copy thereof, certified xerox copy of the decision is attached as Annex "D";

That they were totally unaware of said judgment as [Atty. Elayda] had not again
lifted any single finger to inform them of such adverse judgment and that there
is a need to take a remedial recourse thereto;

That [Atty. Elayda] did not even bother to file a notice of appeal hence the
judgment became final and executory hence a writ of execution was issued
upon motion of the plaintiff [Martin Guballa] in the said case; CSHDTE

That on July 18, 2006 Sheriff IV Leandro R. Madarag implemented the writ of
execution and it was only at this time that [the spouses Aranda] became aware
of the judgment of the Court, certified xerox copy of the writ of execution is
attached as Annex "E";
That on July 19, 2006, they wasted no time in verifying the status of their case
before Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Olongapo City and to their utter shock,
dismay and disbelief, they found out that they have already lost their case and
worst the decision had already become final and executory;

That despite their plea for a reasonable period to take a remedial recourse of the
situation (the Sheriff initially gave them fifteen (15) days), Sheriff Madarag
forcibly took possession and custody of their Mitsubishi Pajero with Plate No.
529;

That they were deprived of their right to present their evidence in the said case
and of their right to appeal because of the gross negligence of respondent." 3

In its Order 4 dated August 15, 2006, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
directed Atty. Elayda to submit his Answer to the complaint with a warning that
failure to do so will result in his default and the case shall be heard ex parte.

Atty. Elayda filed his Answer 5 dated September 1, 2006, in which he narrated:

7.That this case also referred to [Atty. Elayda] sometime December 2004 after
the [spouses Aranda] and its former counsel failed to appear in court on
February 7, 2005;

8.That from December 2004, the [spouses Aranda] did not bother to contact
[Atty. Elayda] to prepare for the case and in fact on May 30, 2005, [Atty.
Elayda] had to ask for postponement of the case for reason that he still have to
confer with the [spouses Aranda] who were not around;

9.That contrary to the allegations of the [spouses Aranda], there was not a
single instance from December 2004 that the [spouses Aranda] called up [Atty.
Elayda] to talk to him regarding their case;

10.That the [spouses Aranda] from December 2004 did not even bother to
follow up their case in court just if to verify the status of their case and that it
was only on July 19, 2006 that they verified the same and also the only time
they tried to contact [Atty. Elayda];
11.That the [spouses Aranda] admitted in their Complaint that they only tried to
contact [Atty. Elayda] when the writ of execution was being implemented on
them;

12.That during the scheduled hearing of the case on February 14, 2006, [Atty.
Elayda] was in fact went to RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City and asked Mrs.
Edith Miano to call him in Branch 73 where he had another case if the [spouses
Aranda] show up in court so that [Atty. Elayda] can talk to them but obviously
the [spouses Aranda] did not appear and Mrs. Miano did not bother to call
[Atty. Elayda];

13.That [Atty. Elayda] was not at fault that he was not able to file the necessary
pleadings in court because the [spouses Aranda] did not get in touch with him;

14.That [Atty. Elayda] cannot contact the [spouses Aranda] for the latter failed
to give their contact number to [Atty. Elayda] nor did the [spouses Aranda] go
to his office to leave their contact number;

14.That the [spouses Aranda] were negligent in their "I don't care attitude"
towards their case and for this reason that they alone should be blamed for what
happened to their case . . . ."

After a careful review of the records of the instant case, this Court finds no
cogent reason to deviate from the findings and the conclusion of the IBP Board
of Governors that Atty. Elayda was negligent and unmindful of his sworn duties
to his clients.

In Abay v. Montesino, 10 this Court held:

The legal profession is invested with public trust. Its goal is to render public
service and secure justice for those who seek its aid. Thus, the practice of law is
considered a privilege, not a right, bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications required for
the conferment of such privilege.

Verily, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency and of morality — which includes honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession,
the courts and their clients in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession, as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any
conduct found wanting in these considerations, whether in their professional or
private capacity, shall subject them to disciplinary action. In the present case,
the failure of respondent to file the appellant's brief was a clear violation of his
professional duty to his client. 11

The Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

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.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

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.

CANON 19 — A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH

ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

From the foregoing, it is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and
safeguard the interests of his clients. He should be conscientious, competent and
diligent in handling his clients' cases. Atty. Elayda should give adequate
attention, care, and time to all the cases he is handling. As the spouses Aranda's
counsel, Atty. Elayda is expected to monitor the progress of said spouses' case
and is obligated to exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense
authorized by law to protect the cause espoused by the spouses Aranda. 
Regrettably, Atty. Elayda failed in all these. Atty. Elayda even admitted that the
spouses Aranda never knew of the scheduled hearings because said spouses
never came to him and that he did not know the spouses' whereabouts. While it
is true that communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his
clients, it is the counsel's primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their
case and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait
for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close
coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately
prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case.
Besides, it is elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange
contact details at the initial stages in order to have constant communication with
each other. Again, Atty. Elayda's excuse that he did not have the spouses
Aranda's contact number and that he did not know their address is simply
unacceptable.

Furthermore, this Court will not countenance Atty. Elayda's explanation that he
cannot be faulted for missing the February 14, 2006 hearing of the spouses
Aranda's case. The Court quotes with approval the disquisition of Investigating
Commissioner Pizarras:

Moreover, his defense that he cannot be faulted for what had happened during
the hearing on February 14, 2006 because he was just at the other branch of the
RTC for another case and left a message with the court stenographer to just call
him when [the spouses Aranda] come, is lame, to say the least. In the first place,
the counsel should not be at another hearing when he knew very well that he
has a scheduled hearing for the [spouses Aranda's] case at the same time. His
attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on the whether [the
spouses Aranda] will come or not. The Order submitting the decision was given
at the instance of the other party's counsel mainly because of his absence there.
Again, as alleged by the [the spouses Aranda] and as admitted by [Atty. Elayda]
himself, he did not take the necessary remedial measure in order to ask that said
Order be set aside. 12 aEcDTC

It is undisputed that Atty. Elayda did not act upon the RTC order submitting the
spouses Aranda's case for decision. Thus, a judgment was rendered against the
spouses Aranda for a sum of money. Notice of said judgment was received by
Atty. Elayda who again did not file any notice of appeal or motion for
reconsideration and thus, the judgment became final and executory. Atty.
Elayda did not also inform the spouses Aranda of the outcome of the case. The
spouses Aranda came to know of the adverse RTC judgment, which by then had
already become final and executory, only when a writ of execution was issued
and subsequently implemented by the sheriff.

Evidently, Atty. Elayda was remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a

member of the legal profession. His conduct shows that he not only failed to
exercise due diligence in handling his clients' case but in fact abandoned his
clients' cause. He proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his
helpless clients. Moreover, Atty. Elayda owes fealty, not only to his clients, but
also to the Court of which he is an officer. 13

On a final note, it must be stressed that whenever a lawyer accepts a case, it

deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and whether or not it is for a fee or free. 14 Verily, in Santiago v.
Fojas, 15 the Court held:

Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the
latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance
and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the
rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the
land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If
much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also
to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves
the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. 16
 WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and
adopting the Decision of the Investigating Commissioner is
herebyAFFIRMED. Accordingly, respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar
act will be dealt with more severely.

CANON 19 — A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law.

RULE 19.01A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threatening to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.

RULE 19.02A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall
promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.

RULE 19.03A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling
thecase.

ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES, complainant, vs. ATTY. JACINTO D.

JIMENEZ, respondent. (FILED CRIMINAL CASE INTEAD OF MOTION
FOR EXECUTION FOR FAILURE OF COMPLAINANT TO OBEY THE
ORDER OF THE COURT)

Complainant Atty. Briones is the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J.

Henson. Respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is the counsel for the Heirs of the
late Luz J. Henson (Heirs).
On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the RTC a notice of appeal from the
Order dated April 3, 2002, questioning the payment of commission to Atty.
Briones. 2

On April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 70349 assailing the Order dated March 12, 2002, appointing the firm of
Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit at the expense of the late Luz J.
Henson, as well as the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar as it denied their
motion for recommendation. 3

On July 26, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed with the CA a Petition for Mandamus,
docketed as CA-G.R. No. 71844, 4 alleging that the respondent Judge therein
unlawfully refused to comply with his ministerial duty to approve their appeal
which was perfected on time. 5

Atty. Briones, in his Comment, contends that the heirs of the late Luz J.
Henson, represented by Atty. Jimenez, are guilty of forum shopping for which
reason, the petition should be dismissed. 6 STECAc

On February 11, 2003, the CA without touching on the forum shopping issue,
granted the petition and ordered the respondent Judge to give due course to the
appeal taken by Atty. Jimenez from the Order dated April 3, 2002, insofar as it
directed the payment of commission to Atty. Briones. 7

Atty. Briones then filed with this Court a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No.
159130, praying for the dismissal of the appeal from the Order dated April 3,
2002, insofar as it ordered the payment of commission to him, as the Special
Administrator of the estate of the deceased Luz J. Henson. 8

The Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their
respective memoranda.

Atty. Briones (hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed his "Memorandum

with Administrative Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Jacinto Jimenez,
Counsel for Respondents", 9 for violation of Rule 19.01 and Rule 12.08 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Revised Circular No. 28-91 on forum
shopping.

Complainant claims that Atty. Jimenez (hereinafter referred to as respondent)

and the Heirs engaged again in forum shopping when respondent, as counsel for
the Heirs, filed a criminal complaint and executed an affidavit against
complainant for resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order dated April
3, 2002 which directed complainant to deliver the residue of the estate to the
Heirs in proportion to their shares, punishable under Article 151 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Complainant further claims that respondent violated Rules 19.01 and 12.08 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case of proceeding.

Rule 12.08 — A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:

(a)on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an

instrument, and the like; or

b)on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of
justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the
case to another counsel.

by filing the unfounded criminal complaint against him to obtain an improper

advantage in Special Proceedings No. 99-92870 before the RTC, Branch 46,
and coerce complainant to deliver to the Heirs the residue of the estate of the
late Luz J. Henson without any writ of execution or any pronouncement from
the RTC as to the finality of the Order dated April 3, 2002; 10 and in executing
an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint.

The Court agrees with the OBC that respondent is not guilty of forum shopping.
Records show that respondent, as counsel for the heirs of the late Luz J.
Henson, filed a special civil action docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70349
assailing the Order of March 12, 2002 appointing the accounting firm of Alba,
Romeo and Co. as auditor; and, a regular appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
71488 assailing the Order of April 3, 2002, insofar as it directed the payment of
commission to complainant. It is evident that there is identity of parties but
different causes of action and reliefs sought. Hence, respondent is not guilty
of forum shopping. 15 The Court likewise finds no fault on the part of
respondent in executing an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint as held
in the Santiago case.

However, there is sufficient ground in support of complainant's claim that

respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Records reveal that before respondent assisted the Heirs in filing the
criminal complaint against herein complainant, he sent demand letters to
the latter to comply with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the residue of
the estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. Considering that
complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file
said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the
lawful order of the court.

The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed Order dated April 3, 2002
which directs complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in proportion to
their shares. As aptly pointed out by complainant, respondent should have first
filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said
Order instead of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint
against him. A mere perusal of the rest of the Order dated April 3, 2002 readily
discloses that the approval of the report of complainant as Special
Administrator was suspended prior to the audit of the administration of
complainant. Consequently, the RTC would still have to determine and define
the residue referred to in the subject Order. The filing of the criminal complaint
was evidently premature.

Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule
19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against
herein complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him; and
that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability.
The Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that respondent should have
filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of
the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature
criminal prosecution.

Although respondent failed to live up to this expectation, there is no evidence

that he acted with malice or bad faith. Consequently, it is but fit to reprimand
respondent for his act of unfair dealing with complainant. It must be stressed
that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such,
the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the
most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing
and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the
bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less
severe — such as reprimand, suspension, or fine — would accomplish the end
desired. 18 EaIDAT

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found GUILTY of and

REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL, complainant, vs.

ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO, respondent.

The Case

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the Board of

Directors 1 of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against respondent
Atty. James Benedict Florido (respondent) for "acts constituting grave coercion
and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his
clients in physically taking over the management and operation of
the bank through force, violence and intimidation."

The Facts

On 18 April 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against

respondent. 2 RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code).
According to RBCI, on 1 April 2002, respondent and his clients, Dr.
Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos,
and Felix Rengel (Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force and
intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management
and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay (Garay),
the bank manager, destroyed the bank's vault, and installed their own staff to
run the bank.

The Ruling of the Court

We affirm the IBP Board of Governors' resolution.

The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the
land. 6Likewise, it is the lawyer's duty to promote respect for the law and legal
processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or
lessening confidence in the legal system. 

Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a
lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of
fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client. 8 It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong
to their adversaries. 9

We agree with Commissioner Villadolid, Jr.'s conclusion:

Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their
professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily,
when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a
party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect
their clients' interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every
available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be
made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the
law, and the fair administration of justice. 10
 A lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that
end, his client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. 11 Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. 12

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of

violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of
law for one year effective upon finality of this Decision.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be
furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and in all courts in the country
for their information and guidance.

CANON 20 — A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees:

RULE 20.01A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:

a)The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;

b)The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

c)The importance of the subject matter;

d)The skill demanded;

e)The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the

proffered case;

f)The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP
chapter to which he belongs;

g)The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
from the services;

h)The contingency or certainty of compensation;

i)The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

j)The professional standing of the lawyer.

RULE 20.02A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed
and responsibility assumed.

RULE 20.03A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the
client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional
employment from anyone other than the client.

RULE 20.04A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.

VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MACARIO D.

CARPIO, respondent. (WITHHELD TITLE TO PROPERTY…. NOT
VALID. ATTORNEY LIEN REQUISITES NOT PRESENT)

This is a disbarment case against Atty. Macario D. Carpio filed by Valentin C.

Miranda. 1

The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:

Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land

consisting of 1,890 square meters located at Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Piñas,
Metro Manila. In 1994, complainant initiated Land Registration Commission
(LRC) Case No. M-226 for the registration of the aforesaid property. The case
was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275. During
the course of the proceedings, complainant engaged the services of respondent
Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his original counsel, Atty. Samuel
Marquez, figured in a vehicular accident.

In complainant's Affidavit, 2 complainant and respondent agreed that

complainant was to pay respondent Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as
acceptance fee and Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee.
Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him, as evidenced by receipts
duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of the case, respondent
demanded the additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for the
preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further strengthen
complainant's position in the case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total area of
the subject property as additional fees for his services.

Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their
agreement. Moreover, complainant co-owned the subject property with his
siblings, and he could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by
respondent without the knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. As a result of
complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands, the latter became furious
and their relationship became sore. 

On January 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered in LRC Case No. M-226,
granting the petition for registration, which Decision was declared final and
executory in an Order dated June 5, 1998. On March 24, 2000, the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of the letter addressed to
the Register of Deeds (RD) of Las Piñas City, which transmitted the decree of
registration and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the property.

On April 3, 2000, complainant went to the RD to get the owner's duplicate of

the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) bearing No. 0-94. He was surprised to
discover that the same had already been claimed by and released to respondent
on March 29, 2000. On May 4, 2000, complainant talked to respondent on the
phone and asked him to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which he
had claimed without complainant's knowledge, consent and authority.
Respondent insisted that complainant first pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the
20% share in the property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for
which, respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT. Once again,
complainant refused the demand, for not having been agreed upon.

In a letter 3 dated May 24, 2000, complainant reiterated his demand for the
return of the owner's duplicate of the OCT. On June 11, 2000, complainant
made the same demand on respondent over the telephone. Respondent reiterated
his previous demand and angrily told complainant to comply, and threatened to
have the OCT cancelled if the latter refused to pay him.

On June 26, 2000, complainant learned that on April 6, 2000, respondent

registered an adverse claim on the subject OCT wherein he claimed that the
agreement on the payment of his legal services was 20% of the property and/or
actual market value. To date, respondent has not returned the owner's duplicate
of OCT No. 0-94 to complainant and his co-heirs despite repeated demands to
effect the same.

The Court sustains the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, which
affirmed with modification the findings and recommendations of the IBP-CBD.
Respondent's claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally give him
the right to retain the property of his client until he receives what is allegedly
due him has been paid has no basis and, thus, is invalid.

Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides:

Section 37.Attorney's liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client, which have lawfully come into his
possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements
have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have
caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of
the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and shall have
caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse
party; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment
of his just fees and disbursements. EcDTIH

An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the presence of the

following elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful
possession of the client's funds, documents and papers; and (3)  unsatisfied
claim for attorney's fees. 9 Further, the attorney's retaining lien is a general
lien for the balance of the account between the attorney and his client, and
applies to the documents and funds of the client which may come into the
attorney's possession in the course of his employment. 10

In the present case, complainant claims that there is no such agreement for the
payment of professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the subject
property and submits that their agreement was only for the payment of the
acceptance fee and the appearance fees.

As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no proof of any agreement

between the complainant and the respondent that the latter is entitled to an
additional professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area covered by OCT
No. 0-94. The agreement between the parties only shows that respondent will
be paid the acceptance fee and the appearance fees, which the respondent has
duly received. Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney's feesthat
would entitle respondent to retain his client's property. Hence, respondent could
not validly withhold the title of his client absence a clear and justifiable claim. 

Respondent's unjustified act of holding on to complainant's title with the

obvious aim of forcing complainant to agree to the amount of attorney's fees
sought is an alarming abuse by respondent of the exercise of an attorney's
retaining lien, which by no means is an absolute right, and cannot at all justify
inordinate delay in the delivery of money and property to his client when due or
upon demand. 11

Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by unlawfully

withholding and failing to deliver the title of the complainant, despite repeated
demands, in the guise of an alleged entitlement to additional professional fees.
He has breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which read:

CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESS.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.

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

Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, respondent violated

Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that "a
lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees." It is highly improper for a
lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never
mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services. At the
outset, respondent should have informed the complainant of all the fees or
possible fees that he would charge before handling the case and not towards the
near conclusion of the case. This is essential in order for the complainant to
determine if he has the financial capacity to pay respondent before engaging his
services.

Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional

professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no merit.
"Quantum meruit, meaning 'as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for
determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but
recoverable by him from his client." 12 The principle of quantum
meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his
services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his
services, as much as he has earned. 13 In the present case, the parties had
already entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent,
and thus, the principle of quantum meruit does not fully find application
because the respondent is already compensated by such agreement.

The Court notes that respondent did not inform complainant that he will be the
one to secure the owner's duplicate of the OCT from the RD and failed to
immediately inform complainant that the title was already in his possession.
Complainant, on April 3, 2000, went to the RD of Las Piñas City to get the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, only to be surprised that the said title had
already been claimed by, and released to, respondent on March 29, 2000. A
lawyer must conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with
integrity in a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness. 14 By
keeping secret with the client his acquisition of the title, respondent was not fair
in his dealing with his client. Respondent could have easily informed the
complainant immediately of his receipt of the owner's duplicate of the OCT on
March 29, 2000, in order to save his client the time and effort in going to the
RD to get the title.

Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property belonging to his client

and imposing unwarranted fees in exchange for the release of said title deserve
the imposition of disciplinary sanction. Hence, the ruling of the IBP Board of
Governors, adopting and approving with modification the report and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months and that respondent be ordered to
return the complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 is hereby affirmed.
However, the fifteen-day period from notice given to respondent within which
to return the title should be modified and, instead, respondent should return the
same immediately upon receipt of the Court's decision.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED from the practice

of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. He
is ordered to RETURN to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-
94 immediately upon receipt of this decision. He is WARNED that a repetition
of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

TERESITA D. SANTECO, complainant, vs. ATTY. LUNA B.

AVANCE, respondent.

The case originated from an administrative complaint 1 filed by Teresita D.

Santeco against respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case
No. 97-275, an action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for
reconveyance and damages, which complainant had filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.

In an En Banc Decision 2 dated December 11, 2003, the Court found

respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her
client's cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders
directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, and was likewise
directed to return to complainant, within ten (10) days from notice, the amount
of P3,900.00 which complainant paid her for the filing of a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which she never filed.

Respondent moved to reconsider 3 the decision but her motion was denied in a

Resolution 4 dated February 24, 2004.

Subsequently, while respondent's five-year suspension from the practice of law

was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of
Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report 5 dated November 12, 2007 to
then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock informing the latter that
respondent had appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she
misrepresented herself as "Atty. Liezl Tanglao." When her opposing counsels
confronted her and showed to the court a certification regarding her suspension,
respondent admitted and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but
qualified that she was only suspended for three years and that her suspension
has already been lifted. Judge Amog-Bocar further stated that respondent
nonetheless withdrew her appearance from all the cases. Attached to the letter-
report were copies of several pertinent orders from her court confirming the
report.

Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar's letter-report, the Court, in a Resolution 6 dated

April 9, 2008, required respondent to comment within ten (10) days from
notice. Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment. On June 10,
2009, the Court reiterated the directive to comment; otherwise the case would
be deemed submitted for resolution based on available records on file with the
Court. Still, respondent failed to comply despite notice. Accordingly, this Court
issued a Resolution 7 on September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty of
indirect contempt. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: EATcHD

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of indirect contempt and

is hereby FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions
will be dealt with more severely.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be
notified of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file of
respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance. 8

A copy of the September 29, 2009 Resolution was sent to respondent's address
of record at "26-B Korea Ave., Ph. 4, Greenheights Subd., Nangka, Marikina
City" by registered mail. The same was delivered by Postman Hermoso Mesa,
Jr. and duly received by one Lota Cadete on October 29, 2009, per
certification 9 dated February 3, 2011 by Postmaster Rufino C. Robles of the
Marikina Central Post Office.

Despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay the fine imposed in the
September 29, 2009 Resolution based on a certification issued by Araceli C.
Bayuga, Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Cash Collection and Disbursement
Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office. The said certification reads:

This is to certify that as per records of the Cashier Division, there is no record
of payment made by one ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE in the amount of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as payment for COURT FINE imposed in the
resolution dated 29 Sept. 2009 Re: Adm. Case No. 5834. 10

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a

member of the bar.

As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and

authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes. 11
Here, respondent's conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an
officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Court's
orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice
despite the five-year suspension order against her and even misrepresented
herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she
was twice ordered to comment on her continued law practice while still
suspended, nothing was heard from her despite receipt of two Resolutions from
this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed in the September
29, 2009 Resolution.

We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer's suspension or
even disbarment. 12 Sebastian v. Bajar 13 teaches:

Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme

Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not
to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively. Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the
Court's orders not "only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too
deserving of reproof." 14

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or
for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to
wit: AcHSEa

SEC. 27.Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds

therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
 do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis
supplied.)

In repeatedly disobeying this Court's orders, respondent proved herself

unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent
to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an
officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is

hereby DISBARRED for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful
orders of a superior court. Her name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the
Roll of Attorneys.

CANON 21 — A lawyer shall preserve the confidences or secrets of his client

even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

RULE 21.01A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except:

a)when authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;

b)when required by law;

c)when necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or

associates or by Judicial action.

RULE 21.02A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.

RULE 21.03A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give
information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
RULE 21.04A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or
associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

RULE 21.05A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent
those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or
secrets of the client.

RULE 21.06A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs
even with members of his family.

RULE 21.07A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular
case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

BUN SIONG YAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. LEONARDO A.

AURELIO, respondent.

The complainant alleged that since 1987 he retained the services of respondent
as his personal lawyer; that respondent is a stockholder and the retained counsel
of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile Finishing
Corporation of which complainant is a majority stockholder; that complainant
purchased several parcels of land using his personal funds but were registered
in the name of the corporations upon the advice of respondent; that respondent,
who was also the brother in-law of complainant's wife, had in 1999 a
disagreement with the latter and thereafter respondent demanded the return of
his investment in the corporations but when complainant refused to pay, he filed
eight charges for estafa and falsification of commercial documents against the
complainant and his wife and the other officers of the corporation; that
respondent also filed a complaint against complainant for alleged non-
compliance with the reportorial requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City
and another complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon City
for alleged violation of Section 75 of the Corporation Code; that respondent
also filed a similar complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.
Complainant alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his wife is a
form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of the confidential information
which respondent obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel.
Complainant argued that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interests when he filed several suits not only against the complainant and the
other officers of the corporation, but also against the two corporations of which
he is both a stockholder and retained counsel. ETHIDa

RULING:

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

We find that the professional relationship between the complainant and the
respondent is more extensive than his protestations that he only handled isolated
labor cases for the complainant's corporations. Aside from being the brother-in-
law of complainant's wife, it appears that even before the inception of the
companies, respondent was already providing legal services to the complainant,

It appears that the parties' relationship was not just professional, but they are
also related by affinity. The disagreement between complainant's wife and the
respondent affected their professional relationship. Complainant's refusal to
disclose certain financial records prompted respondent to retaliate by filing
several suits. HEASaC

It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a
fiduciary one. 6 Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is that an
attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his
professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to
preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception of their
relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease
with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to
employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client. 7
Notwithstanding the veracity of his allegations, respondent's act of filing
multiple suits on similar causes of action in different venues constitutes forum-
shopping, as correctly found by the investigating commissioner. This highlights
his motives rather than his cause of action. Respondent took advantage of his
being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. In doing so, he has
inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with
complainant and complainant's companies for his own end.

Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach. 8 Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the
purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any
person — most especially against a client or former client. As we stated
in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.: 9

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in
the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his
profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard
of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a
lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should
be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession. 10(Emphasis supplied)

In sum, we find that respondent's actuations amount to a breach of his duty to

uphold good faith and fairness, sufficient to warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonardo A. Aurelio is ordered SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon
receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Court
Administrator is directed to circulate this order of suspension to all courts in the
country. 
 SO ORDERED.

CANON 22 — A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances.

RULE 22.01A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:

a)When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection

with the matter he is handling;

b)When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons
and rules;

c)When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of
the client:

d)When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him
to carry out the employment effectively;

e)When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to
comply with the retainer agreement;

f)When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

g)Other similar cases.

RULE 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer

lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled,
and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter,
including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.

MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M.

JOAQUIN, complainants, vs. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P.
PORTUGAL,respondent.

The facts are as follows:

On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3
Rolando M. Joaquin (eventually petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23, collectively
referred to herein as the accused) were involved in a shooting incident which
resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another. As a
result, Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for
murder and frustrated murder. The accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
After due trial, the Sandiganbayan 2 found the accused guilty of two counts of
homicide and one count of attempted homicide.

At that juncture, complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the
accused. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but it was denied in a Resolution dated 21 August 2001.
Unfazed by the denial, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File
Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for
Reconsideration. 3 Pending resolution by the Sandiganbayan, respondent also
filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) on 3
May 2002.

Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the

frequent telephone calls they made to his office. When respondent did not
return their phone inquiries, complainants went to respondent's last known
address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding
address. ETIHCa

More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to
personally verify the status of the ad cautelam petition as they had neither news
from respondent about the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts. They were
shocked to discover that the Court had already issued a Resolution 4dated 3
July 2002, denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to
terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause.
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than
for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A
lawyer's right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises
only from the client's written consent or from a good cause. 16

The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for

six (6) months, the most severe penalty recommended by Commissioner
Villadolid, but did not explain why such penalty was justified. In a fairly recent
case where the lawyer failed to file an appeal brief which resulted to the
dismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court of Appeals, the Court imposed
upon the erring lawyer the penalty of three (3) months' suspension. 25 The
Court finds it fit to impose the same in the case at bar.

FLORENCE TEVES MACARUBBO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO

L. MACARUBBO, respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is found guilty of gross

immorality and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is
likewise ORDERED to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline and to this Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for
the regular support of his two children by complainant.

Let respondent's name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon

City, Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency, 8 the Court laid down the following
guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:

1.There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity
and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the
same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-
reformation.
2.Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to
ensure a period of reform.

3.The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.

4.There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning

or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of
the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as
potential for public service.

5.There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.  9 

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any
other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person
of good moral character.  10

Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds the instant
petition meritorious.

Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his

indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. He has asked
forgiveness from his children by complainant Teves and maintained a cordial
relationship with them as shown by the herein attached pictures. 11 Records
also show that after his disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in
Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and taking care of his
ailing mother until her death in 2008. 12 In 2009, he was appointed as Private
Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the position
of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/Office-in-Charge in the Assessor's
Office, which office he continues to serve to date. 13 Moreover, he is a part-
time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College
during the School Year 2011-2012. 14 Respondent likewise took an active part
in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire
need. DcaECT
The following documents attest to respondent's reformed ways: (1) Affidavit of
Candida P. Mabborang; 15 (2) Affidavit of Reymar P. Ramirez; 16 (3)
Affidavit of Roberto D. Tallud; 17 (4) Certification from the Municipal Local
Government Office; 18 (5) Certification by the Office of the Municipal
Agriculturist/Health Officer, Social Welfare Development Officer; 19 (6)
Certification from the Election Officer of Enrile, Cagayan; 20 (7) Affidavit of
Police Senior Inspector Jacinto T. Tuddao; 21 (8) Certifications from nine (9)
Barangay Chairpersons; 22 (9) Certification from the Office of the Provincial
Assessor; 23 (10) Certification from the Office of the Manager, Magsaka ca
Multi-Purpose Cooperative; 24 and (11) Certification of the Office of the
Federation of Senior Citizens, Enrile Chapter. 25 The Office of the Municipal
Treasurer also certified that respondent has no monetary accountabilities in
relation to his office 26 while the Office of the Human Resource Management
Officer attested that he has no pending administrative case. 27 He is not known
to be involved in any irregularity and/or accused of a crime. Even the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) attested that he has no record on file as of May
31, 2011. 28

Furthermore, respondent's plea for reinstatement is duly supported by the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cagayan Chapter 29 and by his former and
present colleagues. 30 His parish priest, Rev. Fr. Camilo Castillejos, Jr.,
certified that he is faithful to and puts to actual practice the doctrines of the
Catholic Church. 31 He is also observed to be a regular churchgoer. 32 Records
further reveal that respondent has already settled his previous marital
squabbles, 33 as in fact, no opposition to the instant suit was tendered by
complainant Teves. He sends regular support 34 to his children in compliance
with the Court's directive in the Decision dated February 27, 2004.

The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time
respondent was disbarred and recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer
product of Lemu National High School, 35 and his fourteen (14) years of
dedicated government service from 1986 to July 2000 as Legal Officer of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil Service
Attorney of the Civil Service Commission; Ombudsman Graft Investigation
Officer; and State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice. 36 From the
attestations and certifications presented, the Court finds that respondent has
sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At 58 37 years of age, he still has
productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the
upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society. While the Court
is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers,
concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed
their ways, 38 as in this case. ESTAIH

Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered reinstated to the practice of law. He

is, however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby
adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict
compliance with the rules and the law are continuing requirements. 39

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED.

Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is hereby ordered REINSTATED in the
Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.