#7. Josephine L Orola, et al vs Atty.

Joseph Ador Ramos

AC No. 9860

FACTS
The complainants are the children of the late Trinidad Laserna-Orola married to Emilio
Q Orola.

The respondent is the collaborating counsel of the complainant in the settlement of

Trinidad’s estate. In the course of the proceedings, the Heirs of Trinidad and the Heirs
of Antonio moved for the removal of Emilio as administrator and in his stead, sought the
appointment of the latter’s son, Manuel Orola which the RTC granted. Subsequently,
respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in the same
case and moved for the reconsideration of the RTC Order.

Complainants further claimed that while Maricar, the surviving spouse of Antonio and
the mother of Karen, consented to the withdrawal of respondent’s appearance, the
same was obtained only after he had already entered his appearance for Emilio. In this
accord, respondent failed to disclose such fact to all the affected heirs and, as such,
was not able to obtain their written consent as required under the Rules.

ISSUE: W/N the respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of

Rule 15.03 of the Code?

RULING:

Yes. Rule 15.03 of the Code reads:

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

ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. 

Respondent failed in this respect as the records show that respondent was remiss in his
duty to make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as Emilio’s counsel to all
the Heirs of Antonio – particularly, Karen – and equally secure their express written
consent before consummating the same. Besides, it must be pointed out that a lawyer
who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.

Hence, Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months.

#8. Arsenia T Bergonia vs Atty. Arsenio A Merrera

AC No. 5024. February 20, 2003
FACTS:
Complainant together with her relatives, filed a case for the quieting of title against her
niece Josephine Bergonia, Spouses Rodolfo and Remedios Parayno and their minor
daughter Gretchen. The RTC promulgated its decision in favour of the Parayno spouses
and their daughter and the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

The Paraynos instituted Civil Case against the complainant to recover possession. After
the Answer was filed, respondent became her counsel of record. After due trial, the
RTC rendered its decision ordering the complainant to vacant the premises and to
surrender possession to the Parayno spouses.

Thereafter, complainant appealed the RTC judgment to the CA. Respondent, as

counsel, received a Notice to File Brief. The CA granted his motion for extension to file
the appellant’s brief. Before the first extension had lapsed, he again filed an Urgent
Second Motion for extension to file brief and the CA again granted his Second Motion.
Eventually, the deadline, which had already been extended twice, lapsed without his
filing the appellant’s brief. Hence, the CA dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Arsenio A Merrera violates Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by not filing the brief of the complainant and asked for further extensions
of time?

RULING:
Yes. Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requires all the
members of the bar to observe the following:

“A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.”

In this case, respondent twice moved for an extension of time to file the required
appellant’s brief.  In his first Motion, he alleged that he had a hectic daily schedule of
hearings and other pressures from work.  In his next Motion, he claimed he had acute
arthritis and asthmatic attacks.  The granting of his two Motions implied that he had
been given ample time either to finish researching his case or to withdraw his appeal.  
Yet, he still failed to file the required brief. 

Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable

membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest
standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their
relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. 
They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to
the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their
clients.  Canon 18.03 of the Code requires that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable.”
Hence, Atty. Arsenio A Merrera is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months.

#9. Veronica S Santiago, et al vs Atty. Amado R Fojas

AC 4103. September 7, 1995

FACTS:

Complainants Veronica Santiago, Benjamin Hontiveros, Ma. Socorro Manas, and

Trinidad Nordista were the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Auditor,
respectively, of the FEUFA. They allegedly expelled from the union Paulino Salvador.

Med-Arbiter Tomas Falconitin declared illegal Salvador's expulsion and directed the
union and all its officers to reinstate Salvador's name in the roll of union members with
all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. This resolution was affirmed in toto by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Subsequently, Paulino Salvador filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, Branch 172, a complaint against the complainants herein for actual,
moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the
Civil Code. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.

As the complainants’ counsel, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said case
and later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. The trial court, granted the motion
and ordered the dismissal of the case. Upon Salvador's motion for reconsideration,
however, it reconsidered the order of dismissal, reinstated the case, and required the
complainants herein to file their answer within a nonextendible period of fifteen days
from notice.

Instead of filing an answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and
dismissal of the case. This motion having been denied, the respondent filed peitition for
certiorari.

Although that petition and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied,
the respondent still did not file the complainants' answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91.
Hence, upon plaintiff Salvador's motion, the complainants were declared in default, and
Salvador was authorized to present his evidence ex-parte.

The respondent asserts that he was about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but
his services as counsel for the complainants and for the union were illegally and
unilaterally terminated by complainant Veronica Santiago.

ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Amado R Fojas violated the Corporate Professional Responsibility in failing to
file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case  for which reason the latter were
declared in default and judgment was rendered against them on the basis of the
plaintiff's evidence, which was received ex-parte.

RULING:

Yes. The respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with
diligence and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."

The fact remains that the respondent did not comply with his duty to file an answer in
Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. His lack of diligence was compounded by his erroneous
belief that the trial court committed such error or grave abuse of discretion and by his
continued refusal to file an answer even after he received the Court of Appeals' decision
in the certiorari case. There is no showing whatsoever that he further assailed the said
decision before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to
prove his claim of overzealousness to challenge the trial court's order. Neither was it
shown that he alleged in his motion to lift the order of default that the complainants had
a meritorious defense.

Hence, Atty. Amado R Fojas is Reprimanded and Admonished.