37. Burbe v.

Magulta
Doctrine: It may be true that they have a lien upon the client’s funds, documents
and other papers that have lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain
them until their lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that they may
apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and disbursements. However,
these considerations do not relieve them of their duty to promptly account for the
moneys they received.
Facts: After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both
cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary consideration.
This is a case regarding the appropriation of the client’s fees for his own use.
Dominador Burbe filed a case against Atty. Alberto Magulta when the former’s
civil case was not progressing. Despite diligently paying the fees due to Atty.
Magulta, the respondent insisted the reason for delay is the court personnel’s
inefficiency but later admitted that he has not at all filed the case because he had
spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Magulta violated Canon 16.01
Held: Yes. Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation
of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal
profession. It may be true that they have a lien upon the client’s funds, documents
and other papers that have lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain
them until their lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that they may
apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and disbursements. However,
these considerations do not relieve them of their duty to promptly account for the
moneys they received. Their failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
In any event, they must still exert all effort to protect their client’s interest within
the bounds of law.
If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege
to practice law carries with it correlative duties not only to the client but also to the
court, to the bar, and to the public. Respondent fell short of this standard, when he
converted into his legal fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus
failed to file the complaint promptly. The fact that the former returned the amount
does not exculpate him from his breach of duty.
 38. Uy v. Gonzales
Doctrine: There is no violation of the duty of a lawyer to preserve the confidence
and secrets of another where the facts alleged in a complaint for estafa filed by the
lawyer against such person were not obtained by the lawyer in his professional
capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son,
and to hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case
against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests.
Facts:
William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin
L. Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship.
He engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the
circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs,
respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. With the execution of the letter-
complaint, respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and grossly disregarded his
duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent unceremoniously turned
against him just because he refused to grant respondent’s request for additional
compensation. Respondent’s act tarnished his reputation and social standing.
On December 17, 1998, Respondent offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9
hectare-property situated in Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan covered by
TCT No. T-33122 which the latter acquired by purchase from his (respondent’s)
son, the late Fermin C. Gonzales, Jr.. On the same date, he paid complainant
P340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of TCT No. T-33122 as well as the
execution of the Deed of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant
additional time to locate said title or until after Christmas to deliver the same and
execute the Deed of Redemption. After the said period, he went to complainant’s
office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of
Redemption. Instead, complainant gave him photocopies of TCT No. T-33122 and
TCT No. T-5165. Complainant explained that he had already transferred the title of
the property, covered by TCT No.T-5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy
and that TCT No. T-5165 was misplaced and cannot be located despite efforts to
locate it.
On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost
title ready for signing and notarization. On April 14, 1999, he went to
complainant’s office informing him that the petition is ready for filing and needs
funds for expenses. The complainant left without leaving funds and instructions
despite instructed to wait in the anteroom. Complainant’s conduct infuriated him
which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another
lawyer to file the petition.
Issue: Whether or not the criminal complaint violated the attorney-client privilege
Held: No. As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation of a person, who in respect
to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining
professional advice or assistance.
Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for “Estafa Through Falsification of
Public Documents” filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by
respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered
his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has
redeemed from complainant. Respondent’s immediate objective was to secure the
title of the property that complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there
was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant.
There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case
against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests.
 39. Mercado v. Vitriolo
Doctrine: The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality the client must intend the communication to be confidential; A
confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act or
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means which, so far as
the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.
Facts: Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.
Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The
complainant alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for
falsification of public document against her, a former client, based on confidential
information gained from their attorney-client relationship.
Complainant is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards
Development Division, Office of Programs and Standards while respondent is a
Deputy Executive Director IV of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
When the complainant’s previous counsel died in August 1992, the respondent
entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for the complainant. It also appears
that on April 13, 1999, respondent filed a criminal action against complainant for
violation of Articles 171 and 172 (falsification of public document) of the Revised
Penal Code.
Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for falsification of
public document disclosed confidential facts and information relating to the civil
case for annulment, then handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel. This
prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action against respondent. She claims
that, in filing the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of breaching
their privileged and confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should be
disbarred.
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication
Held: No. The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of
confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential. A
confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means which, so far as
the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given. Our jurisprudence on the
matter rests on quiescent ground. Thus, a compromise agreement prepared by a
lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client and delivered to the opposing party,
an offer and counter-offer for settlement, or a document given by a client to his
counsel not in his professional capacity, are not privileged communications, the
element of confidentiality not being present.
The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be intended for mere
information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his
rights or obligations. The communication must have been transmitted by a client to
his attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice. If the client seeks an
accounting service, or business or personal assistance, and not legal advice, the
privilege does not attach to a communication disclosed for such purpose.
 40. Alcala v. De Vera
Doctrine: In failing to inform his clients of the decision in the civil case handled by
him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal
profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional
employment. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is
ever present the need for the client’s being adequately and fully informed and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are
being defended. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
Facts: Complainants charge Atty. Honesto de Vera with gross negligence and
malpractice: 1) for having maliciously and deliberately omitted to notify them of
the decision in civil case 2478 resulting in the deprivation of their right to appeal
from the adverse judgment rendered against them; and 2) for respondent’s
indifference, disloyalty and lack of interest in petitioners’ cause resulting to their
damage and prejudice. Respondent attorney, in his answer to these charges,
asserted that he notified his clients of the decision in question and that he defended
complainants’ case to the best of his ability as demanded by the circumstances and
that he never showed indifference, lack of interest or disloyalty to their cause.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Vera’s action warrants disbarment.
Held: No. In failing to inform his clients of the decision in the civil case handled
by him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the
legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional
employment. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is
ever present the need for the client’s being adequately and fully informed and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are
being defended. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
While there is no finding of malice, deceit, or deliberate intent to cause damage to
his clients, there is, nonetheless, proof of negligence, inattention, and carelessness
on the part of the lawyer in his failure to give timely notice of the decision to the
clients. Fortunately for him, his negligence did not result in any material or
pecuniary damage to his clients. For this reason, this Court is not disposed to
impose upon him what may be considered in a lawyer’s career as the extreme
penalty of disbarment.
 41. Lim v. Villarosa
Doctrine: There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the
new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect
his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection.
Facts: PRC had a case wherein respondent was its counsel. Later on, complainant
had a case against spouses Jalbuena where the parties were related to each other
and the latter spouses were represented by the respondent as their retained counsel;
after respondent had allegedly withdrawn as counsel for the complainant in Civil
Case No. 97-9865.
Being the husband of one of the complainants which respondent himself averred in
his answer, it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim Jr. to represent his wife as one of
the representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint to
protect not only her interest but that of the family’s.
It is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client relationship with the respondent
before the latter was retained as counsel by the Spouses Jalbuena when the latter
were sued by complainant’s representative. Respondent for having appeared as
counsel for the Spouses Jalbuena when charged by respondent’s former client
Jalandoni of PRC and Alhambra Hotel, represented conflicting interests .
Issue: Whether or not conflict of interest existed in the case.
Ruling: There was conflict of interest. There is representation of conflicting
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do
anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or in totally unrelated cases. The cases here directly or indirectly involved
the parties’ connection to PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was
specifically named as party litigant in some of the cases mentioned.
The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the
written consent of all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts,
constitutes professional misconduct which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary
action.
Even respondent’s alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the
family members was improper because the written consent of all concerned was
still required. A lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any
of the parties to it.

42. Pormento, Sr. vs. Pontevedra

Doctrine: ·A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a
former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly
or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared
for the former client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client,
with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly
unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no
conflict of interests.
Facts: The rift between complainant and respondent began when complainant’s
counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648 filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City was dismissed. Complainant claims that respondent, who was his
lawyer in the said case, deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his
counterclaim despite receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result
of which, complainant was deprived of his right to appeal said order. Complainant
asserts that he only came to know of the existence of the trial court’s order when
the adverse party in the said case extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage executed
over the parcel of land which is the subject matter of the suit. In order to recover
his ownership over the said parcel of land, complainant was constrained to hire a
new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an action for the recovery of
the subject property.
Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and interests over
the said parcel of land, he was forced to initiate a criminal case for qualified theft
against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land. Respondent is the
counsel of the accused in said case. Complainant claims that as part of his defense
in said criminal case, respondent utilized pieces of confidential information he
obtained from complainant while the latter is still his client.
Issue: Whether or not conflict of interest existed in the case.
Ruling: There was conflict of interest in the case. A lawyer is forbidden from
representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of
the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the
previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. Conversely, he may
properly act as counsel for a new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a
former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment,
there being in that instance no conflict of interests.
However, we find conflict of interests in respondent’s representation of herein
complainant in Civil Case No. 1648 and his subsequent employment as counsel of
the accused in Criminal Case No. 3159. The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648
is Lot 609 located at Escalante, Negros Occidental, the same parcel of land
involved in Criminal Case No. 3159 filed by herein complainant against several
persons, accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees
within the premises of the said lot. Complainant contends that it is in this criminal
case that respondent used confidential information which the latter obtained from
the former in Civil Case No. 1648.
It cannot be denied that when respondent was the counsel of complainant in Civil
Case No. 1648, he became privy to the documents and information that
complainant possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. Hence, whatever
may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against complainant any
information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous
relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the opposing
side.

43. Garcia v. Manuel

Doctrine: ·It has been held that an attorney’s lien is not an excuse for a lawyer’s
non-rendition of accounting. And while a lawyer is allowed to apply so much of
the client’s funds as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
the lawyer is however under the obligation to promptly thereafter notify his client.
Facts: When the complainant, Maritess Garcia, divorced from husband Oscar
Fauni, approached respondent for legal advice concerning child support and her
condominium unit in San Juan, Metro Manila, which her erstwhile husband refused
to vacate. Respondent agreed to handle her case at a fee of P70,000. Finding
respondent’s fees reasonable, complainant entrusted to respondent all pertinent
papers for his study.
A retainer agreement was entered by complainant with respondent, calling for the
payment of (1) P35,000 payable in weekly installments; (2) P35,000 to come from
the proceeds of the sale of her condominium unit or from any amount that might be
recovered from Mr. Fauni, except that pertaining to child support; and (3) a
contingent fee of 5% of any amount that might be recovered from Mr. Fauni except
that for child support. Incidental expenses, such as filing fees and postage fees,
were also made chargeable to the account of the complainant.
In the interim, complainant made several follow-ups with respondent inquiring
particularly as to whether the ejectment case had already been filed. Through a
telephone conversation with respondent on 7 April 1999, complainant found out
that the ejectment case had not been filed yet by respondent. Agitated by the
information, complainant immediately went to respondent’s residence. An
altercation between respondent and complainant took place. After serious
exchange of words, respondent returned to complainant all of her documents. No
amount of money was, however, returned by respondent to complainant despite the
latter’s demand for its return.
Issue: Whether or not Canon 16 was violated.
Held: Yes. In the instant case, respondent received the amount of P10,000
specifically for filing fees in the ejectment case. Thus, he was under the obligation
to render an accounting of the same. The highly fiduciary and confidential relation
of attorney and client requires that the lawyer should promptly account for all the
funds received from, or held by him for, the client.
Moreover, a lawyer who obtains possession of the funds and properties of his
client in the course of his professional employment shall deliver the same to his
client (a) when they become due or (b) upon demand. In the instant case,
respondent failed to account and return the P10,000 for the filing fees despite
complainant’s repeated demands.
Respondent’s claim is untenable that since complainant was already in arrears with
his fees, it was proper for him to apply the filing fees to his attorney’s fees. It has
been held that an attorney’s lien is not an excuse for a lawyer’s non-rendition of
accounting. And while alawyer is allowed to apply so much of the client’s funds as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, the lawyer is
however under the obligation to promptly thereafter notify his client. Nothing on
record supports respondent’s claim that complainant was adequately notified as to
the application of the P10,000 (for the filing fees) to her arrears.

44. Yu vs. Tajanlangit

Doctrine: The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client
requires that the lawyer should promptly account for all the funds received from, or
held by him for, the client. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees
on the money in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the
obligation to make a prompt accounting.

Facts: Complainant alleged that he had engaged the services of respondent as

defense counsel in Criminal Case No. 96-150393 that resulted in a judgment of
conviction against him and a sentence of thirty (30) years of imprisonment. After
the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied by the trial court,
instead of filing an appeal, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure imputing grave abuse of discretion on the
trial court’s part in denying the motion.
This petition was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals. Due to
respondent’s alleged error in the choice of remedy, the period to appeal lapsed and
complainant was made to suffer imprisonment resulting from his conviction.
Among the charges, the complainant averred that respondent had violated Rule
16.01 of the Code for failing to return the bailbond to him in the amount
P195,000.00 after having withdrawn the same. Respondent averred that
complainant had authorized and instructed him to withdraw the cash bond in order
to apply the amount as payment for legal fees and reimbursement for expenses.

Issue: Whether or not Rule 16.01 was violated.

Held: The Court agrees with the IBP that it was not at all improper for respondent
to have withdrawn the cash bonds as there was evidence showing that complainant
and respondent had entered into a special fee arrangement. But however justified
respondent was in applying the cash bonds to the payment of his services and
reimbursement of the expenses he had incurred, the Court agrees with the IBP that
he is not excused from rendering an accounting of the same.