CANON 16

CASE NO. 1

LICUANAN V. MELO / Adm. Case No. 2361 / February 9, 1989

FACTS
Licuanan, through her counsel Atty. Melo, filed an ejectment case against Pineda , one of her
tenants. The City Court of Manila ruled for Licuanan and ordered Pineda to pay her rentals. In
the months following the favorable judgement, Pineda proceeded to pay rentals to Atty. Melo.
However, Atty. Melo did not remit the money to Licuanan. In fact, he did not even tell Licuanan
about receiving them even when Licuanan called him regularly to ask for updates regarding the
ejectment case. Because Licuanan was not receiving any of the rental payments, she filed an
administrative complaint against Pineda before the Chief of the Tuberculosis Society accusing
her of moral turpitude for not paying the rentals which the court had ordered her to pay. Of
course, the complaint was found to be groundless because Pineda was actually paying the
rentals to Atty. Melo who was not remitting to Licuanan. In turn, Pineda filed a case for
damages against Licuanan because the accusation that she was not paying her rentals had
caused her humiliation. Licuanan later found out, through another counsel, about the money
paid by Pineda to Atty. Melo. Licuanan’s new counsel demandad the same from Atty. Melo who
only then remitted the rentals. However, he explains by saying that he did not tell Licuanan
about the money and only kept it to himself for a while because he wanted to surprise her by
his success. Licuanan filed a complaint against Atty. Melo for breach of professional ethics.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Melo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. Atty. Melo was guilty of breach of professional ethics. The acts of Atty. Melo of keeping
the money for his personal benefit, depriving Licuanan of use of money that was rightfully hers,
and withholding information regarding their receipt despite inquiries made by her, is obviously
in breach of professional ethics. Particularly: The lawyer should refrain from any action
whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust
property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for
promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used by
him. Atty. Melo breached the trust reposed in him by his client. His actions went against the
very nature of an attorney-client relationship which is characterized by confidence and trust.
Atty. Melo was disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
CASE NO. 2
LEMOINE VS. BALON, JR. / A.C. No. 5829 / October 28, 2003.

FACTS
Lemoine, a French national, filed a complaint against Atty. Balon for estafa and misconduct.
Atty. Balon acted as Lemoine’s attorney in an insurance claim against Metropolitan Insurance
regarding his lost vehicle. A certain Garcia arranged for the meeting of Balon and Lemoine.
Balon insisted that for his fees, he shall be paid 25% of whatever amount is to be collected from
the insurance company. Lemoine objected to this arrangement, but still hired the services of
Balon. A few days before Dec. 23, 1998, Lemoine signed an undated, prepared Special Power of
Attorney authorizing Garcia or Balon to institute actions, negotiate and encash checks received
from Metropolitan. On Dec. 23, the SPA was dated and Metropolitan issued a check payable to
Lemoine for P525,000. The check was received by Balon. Fast forward, Lemoine inquired with
Garcia about the status of the claim, Garcia echoed to him that Balon wrote him a letter on
March 1999 stating that the claim was still pending, that it is still subject to negotiations and
that Metropolitan offered 350K. He suggested to Garcia that they accept the 350K to avoid
litigation. On Dec 1999, Lemoine went to Metropolitan Insurance to personally inquire about
the claim and he learned that it had long been settled in Dec 1998. He immediately went to
Balon’s law office. The next day Balon sent Lemoine a letter stating that he is in fact in
possession of the money but he will not turn it over to Lemoine and will continue to retain it
until Lemoine pays him an amount of 50% of the claim. In his letter he also stated that he will
not hesitate to institute cases in the Bureau of Immigration, NLRC, NBI against Lemoine,
warning that he has “good network” relations with them. Lemoine thus instituted this action.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Balon should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. A lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that he may come to
possess. This commandment entails certain specific acts to be done by a lawyer such as
rendering an accounting of all money or property received for or from the client, as well as
delivery of the funds or property to the client when due or upon demand. Respondent
breached this Canon when after he received the proceeds of complainant’s insurance claim, he
did not report it to complainant, who had a given address in Makati, or to his co-attorney-in-
fact Garcia who was his contact with respect to complainant. Balon could not justify his
misconduct based on his right to attorney’s lien. The fact that he kept the money from Lemoine
and only informed him that he has it when Lemoine himself discovered it cannot be tolerated.
The fact that he also altered the check to add his name as payee is grossly unacceptable. He
abused his right to attorney’s lien. It is evident from the facts that Balon misappropriated the
money. The SC found it somewhat fishy that at first he wanted only 25% of the claim but after
he received the money, he wanted 50 % of it. Moreover, the fact that he said he paid Garcia the
balance of the claim minus the fees during several occasions from May-October 1999, contrary
to his earlier affidavit admitting that he had the whole 525,000 in his possession evinces that he
has already misappropriated the money. Atty. Balon was disbarred.

CASE NO. 3
SPOUSES CONCEPCION Vs. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA / A.C. 10681 / February 3, 2015

FACTS
Complainants wanted to open their pawnshop business but did not materialize and Atty.
DelaRosa, as their counsel, knew of the fact that complainants had money intact form their
failed venture,and borrowed money from them in the amount of P2.5M. The checks were
issued and Atty. Dela Rosa photocopied them and verified he received the original checks and
that he promises to pay them within5 days with an interest of 5%. The checks were personally
encased by him. Atty. Dela Rosa failed to pay and despite numerous demands from the
Complainant. Hence an administrative complaint was filed against him. Respondent denied
borrowing the P2.5M insisting that Nault was the real debtor. He also claimed that
complainants had been attempting to collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that
specific purpose.
The investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that respondent’s actions de graded the integrity
ofthe legal profession and clea rly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s
failure to appear during the mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-
CPD. Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred
and that he beordered to return the P2.5M to complainants, with stipulated interest.The IBP
Board of Governors dopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report but reduced the
penalty against respondent to indefinite suspension from the practice of law and orderedthe
return of the P2.5M to the complainants with legal interest.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Dela Rosa’s acts violates the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client
is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust
and confidence”  is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule
presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to
renege on his obligation. A lawyer’s act of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is
very unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of client’s confidence. The canon
presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on her obligation. In unduly borrowing money from the complainants
and by blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the trust and confidence reposed
in him by his clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legalprofession. Thus, he should be equally held administratively liable on thisscore.

CASE NO. 4
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY V. MIJARES / A.C. 838 / November 20, 2009

FACTS:
Arellano University, Inc. engaged the services of respondent Atty. Mijares to secure a certificate
of titlecovering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel that the Universityhad been
occupying. In its complaint for disbarment, complainant allegedthat it gave respondent all the
documents the latter needed to accomplish his work and was given P500,000.00 on top of his
attorney’s fees,supposedly to cover the expenses for “facilitation and processing.”Respondent
informed the University that he already completed Phase I of the titling of the property,
meaning that he succeeded in getting the MMDA to approve it. The Universityre1uested
respondent for copies of the MMDA approval but he unjustifiably failed to comply despite
repeated demands. 2hen he made himself scarce,the University was prompted to withdraw all
the cases it had entrusted to him and demand the return of the money it gave him. The
University eventually terminated respondent’s services. The IBP Commissioner recommended
that respondent be disbarred, howeverthe IBP oard of governors modified it to indefinite
suspension.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Mijares should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING
Yes. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the disbarment or
suspension of a lawyer for the following: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in
office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so. Every lawyer
has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client such that he must
promptly account for whatever money or property his client may have entrusted to him. As a
mere trustee of said money or property, he must hold them separate from that of his own and
make sure that they are used for their intended purpose. If not used, he must return the money
or property immediately to his client upon demand, otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to
have misappropriated the same in violation of the trust reposed on him. A lawyer’s conversion
of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation. Atty. Mijares was disbarred.
CASE NO. 5
FERNANDO W. CHU V. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., / A.C. No. 10573 / January 13, 2015

FACTS
Chu retained Atty. Guico to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo
Ruiz Corporation (CVC), including handling a complaint for illegal dismissal. Chua alleged that
Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable decision. Months later, Chu called Atty.
Guico to inform him that he had raised PhP 300,000.00 for the purpose and which he later
delivered to the latter’s law office. In their subsequent meeting, Atty. Guico then handed Chua a
copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC. Atty. Guico told Chu to raise
another PhP 300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision but Chu
could only produce PhP 280,000.00, which he again brought to Atty. Guico’s office. Finally, the
NLRC issued an adverse decision against Chu’s company and there was no other recourse but to
file an appeal to the CA. In response to the administrative complaint, Atty. Guico described the
administrative complaint as replete with lies and inconsistencies, and insisted that the charge
was only meant for harassment. He denied demanding and receiving money from Chu, a denial
that Atty. Guico’s assistant Nardo corroborated with his own affidavit. He further denied
handing to Chu a draft decision printed on used paper emanating from his office, surmising that
the used paper must have been among those freely lying around in his office that had been
pilfered by Chu’s witnesses in the criminal complaint he had handled for Chu. IBP Commissioner
recommended his disbarment from the practice of law but the IBP Board of Governors,
adopted leniency and reduced the penalty to three (3) years suspension.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Guico should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Respomnsibility

RULING:
Yes. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish
respondent attorney’s liability by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Indeed, this Court
has consistently required clearly preponderantevidence to justify the imposition of either
disbarment or suspension aspenalty. Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in
appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable
decision in the labor case. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant
breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or
malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that forbade him
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He thus violated the law
against bribery and corruption. Every lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any
client that would involve defiance of the very laws that he wasbound to uphold and obey, for
he or she was always bound as an attorney tobe law abiding, and thus to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the LegalProfession. Atty. Guico was disbarred.

CASE NO. 6
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE V. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., / A.C. 10672 / March 18, 2015

FACTS
Maglente, as President of "Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated'', alleged
that he engaged the services of respondent Atty. Agcaoili for the purpose of filing a case and in
connection therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate amount of P48, 000.00 intended to cover the
filing fees for the action to be instituted. However, the respondent failed to file an action in court on the
ground that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the filing fees in court. Thus,
complainant asked for the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent the same and
even demanded more money. Hence, complainant filed this administrative complaint seeking the return
of the full amount he had paid to respondent. The IBP Board of Governors, adopting the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, found that respondent guilty of violating Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he was suspended from the practice of law for three
months and was ordered to return the said money.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Agcaoili should be held liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. A lawyer’s neglect of legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence
for which he must be held administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR. In the
instant case, it is undisputed that complainant engaged the services of the respondent for the purpose
of filing a case in court, and in connection therewith, gave the amount of P48, 000.00 to answer for the
filing fees. Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking and offered the
flimsy excuse that the money he received from complainant was not enough to fully pay the filing fees.
Furthermore, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to
refund the amount of P48, 000.00 that complainant gave him despite repeated demands. Verily, when a
lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if
the money was not used accordingly, the same must be immediately returned to the client. A lawyer’s
failure to return the money to his client despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed in
him and is indicative of his lack of integrity, as in this case. Atty. Agcaoili is suspended for a period of 1
year.

CASE NO. 7
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA ET AL., V. ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, ET AL., / A.C. 7387
/ November 3, 2016

FACTS:
Zalamea brothers sought respondent Atty. de Guzman’s advice on the properties of their ailing
mother under her name. Said property, however, is mortgaged to BDO.  The property was
subsequently foreclosed due to the failure of the Zalameas to pay their loan. The Zalamea then
seek the advice of Atty. De Guzman to reacquire the property. The BDO, through Atty. De
Guzman, agreed to sell the property for P20 Million, and with a 10% downpayment. Due to lack
of funds of the Zalameas, Atty. De Guzman’s wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the P2 Million
downpayment. Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly installments and all in all,
paid a total of P13 Million. Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and
the Spouses De Guzman turned sour. The Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the
amounts which they had advanced for the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers claimed
sole ownership over the Speaker Perez property. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case
against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client's property which was subject of litigation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. De Guzman shall be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING:
No. A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation
because of his fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client.
However, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property
purchased was not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's
properties or interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession. There exists not even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been
involved in any litigation in which De Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True, they
had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their mother's
estate, which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it shown that De
Guzman's law firm had taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez property. Clearly,
the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually one of
business partners rather than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the
Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not by reason of a lawyer-
client relationship, for which he could not be penalized by the Court. The petition for Atty. De
Guzman’s disbarment was dismissed.

CASE NO. 8
SISON V. ATTY. CAMACHO / A.C. 10910 / January 12, 2016

FACTS:
Sison charged ATty. Camacho with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
dishonestly entering into a compromise agreement without authorization and for failure to
render an accounting of funds supposed to be paid as additional docket fees. Attyy. Camacho
was the cpunsel of MAsman in an insurance claim against Paramount Life and General
Insurance. He proposed to increase their claim against the said insurance company and require
additional docket fees. The money for the payment for the additional docket fees was given to
Atty. Camacho, who promised to issue a receipt. Atty. Sison discovered that the RC has
rendered a decision in favor of MDAHI granting its insurance claim plus interest. However, Atty.
Camacho sent a letter to MDAHI recommending a settlemet with Paramount Insurance which
MDAHI refused., Even without the written conformity, Atty. Camacho entered into a
compromise agreement. Atty. Camacho denied all the allegations and stressed that he had the
authority to enter into compromise agreements, and that the docket fees given to him by the
MDAHI formed part of his attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:
Wheter or not ATty. Camacho should be disbarred for violating the Code of rofessional
Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in
all their dealings. .In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the
officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The only
concern of the Court is the determination of the respondent’s administrative liability. The
findings in this case will have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties
maychoose to file against each other. While a lawyer’s wrongful actuations may give rise at the
same time to criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities, each must be determined in the
appropriate case; and every case must be resolved in accordance with the facts and the law
applicable and the quantum of proof required in each. Wellsettled is the rule that lawyers are
not entitled to unilaterally appropriate their clients’ money for themselves bythe mere fact that
the clients owe them attorney’s fees. Pursuant to Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), a lawyer must be aware that he is accountable for the money entrusted to
him by the clients, and that his only means of ensuring accountability is by issuing and keeping
receipts. A lawyer’s failure, to return upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of his
client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. A member of the Bar may be penalized, even
disbarred or suspended from his of ice as an attorney, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or
for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). The palpable indiscretions of Atty. Camacho shall not be countenanced by
the Supreme Court (SC) for these constitute as a blatant and deliberate desecration of the
fiduciary duty that a lawyer owes to his
client. Atty. Camacho is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.