LEGARDA VS CA
It was
FACTS: Petitioner Victoria Legarda was the
owner of a parcel of land and the improvements
located at 123 West Avenue, Quezon City. On
January 11, 1985 respondent New Cathay House,
Inc. filed a complaint against the petitioner for
specific performance with preliminary injunction
and damages in RTC alleging that petitioner
entered into a lease agreement with the private
respondent through its representative, Roberto V.
Cabrera, Jr., of the aforestated property of
petitioner. Respondent drew up the written
contract and sent it to petitioner, that petitioner
failed and refused to execute and sign the same
despite demands of respondent.
Petitioner engaged the services of counsel to
handle her case. Said counsel filed his
appearance with an urgent motion for extension
of time to file the answer within ten (10) days
from February 26, 1985. However, said counsel
failed to file the answer within the extended
period prayed for. Counsel for private respondent
filed an ex-parte motion to declare petitioner in
default. This was granted by the trial court on
March 25, 1985 and private respondent was
allowed to present evidence ex-parte. Thereafter,
on March 25, 1985, the trial court rendered its
decision.
Said counsel for petitioner received a copy of the
judgment but took no steps to have the same set
aside or to appeal therefrom. Thus, the judgment
became final and executory. The property of
petitioner was sold at public auction to satisfy the
judgment in favor of private respondent. The
property was sold to Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr.,
representative of private respondent, and a
certificate of sale was issued in his favor. The
redemption period expired after one year so a
final deed of sale was issued by the sheriff in
favor of Cabrera, who in turn appears to have
transferred the same to private respondent.
During all the time, the petitioner was abroad.
When, upon her return, she learned, to her great
shock, what happened to her case and property,
she nevertheless did not lose faith in her counsel.
She still asked Atty. Coronel to take such
appropriate action possible under the
circumstances.
As above related, said counsel filed a petition for
annulment of judgment and its amendment in the
Court of Appeals. But that was all he did. After an
adverse judgment was rendered against
petitioner, of which counsel was duly notified,
said counsel did not inform the petitioner about
it. He did not even ask for a reconsideration
thereof, or file a petition for review before this
Court. Thus, the judgment became final.
only upon repeated telephone inquiries of
petitioner that she learned from the secretary of
her counsel of the judgment that had
unfortunately become final.
HELD: A lawyer owes entire devotion to the
interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the
end that nothing can be taken or withheld from
his client except in accordance with the law. He
should present every remedy or defense
authorized by the law in support of his client's
cause, regardless of his own personal views. In
the full discharge of his duties to his client, the
lawyer should not be afraid of the possibility that
he may displease the judge or the general public.
12
Judged by the actuations of said counsel in this
case, he has miserably failed in his duty to
exercise his utmost learning and ability in
maintaining his client's cause. 13 It is not only a
case of simple negligence as found by the
appellate court, but of reckless and gross
negligence, so much so that his client was
deprived of her property without due process of
law.
The Court finds that the negligence of counsel in
this case appears to be so gross and inexcusable.
This was compounded by the fact, that after
petitioner gave said counsel another chance to
make up for his omissions by asking him to file a
petition for annulment of the judgment in the
appellate court, again counsel abandoned the
case of petitioner in that after he received a copy
of the adverse judgment of the appellate court,
he did not do anything to save the situation or
inform his client of the judgment. He allowed the
judgment to lapse and become final. Such
reckless and gross negligence should not be
allowed to bind the petitioner. Petitioner was
thereby effectively deprived of her day in court.
Thus, We have before Us a case where to enforce
an alleged lease agreement of the property of
petitioner, private respondent went to court, and
that because of the gross negligence of the
counsel for the petitioner, she lost the case as
well as the title and ownership of the property,
which is worth millions. The mere lessee then
now became the owner of the property. Its true
owner then, the petitioner, now is consigned to
penury all because her lawyer appear to have
abandoned her case not once but repeatedly.
PEREZ VS DELA TORRE
FACTS: Perez alleged that he is the barangay
captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines
Sur. In December 2001, several suspects for
murder and kidnapping for ransom were
apprehended and jailed by the police authorities.
R went to the municipal building of Calabanga
where Ilo and Avila were being detained and
made representations that he could secure their
freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial
confessions. However, unknown to the two
accused, respondent was representing the heirs
of the murder victim. Because of their
extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against
them, including herein complainant who was
implicated in the extrajudicial confessions as the
mastermind in the criminal activities for which
they were being charged.
R’S CONTENTION: Both the accused sought his
assistance in executing their extra judicial
confession. H e also apprised them of their
constitutional rights and of the possibility that
they might be utilized as a state-witness. Lastly,
he also advised them to inform their parents
about their decision.
HELD: violated RULE 15.03, CANON 15
There is conflict of interests when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it
for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one
client, this argument will be opposed by him
when he argues for the other client." This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed
or will be used.
There is a 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.
To negate any culpability, respondent explained
that he did not offer his legal services to accused
Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who
sought his assistance in executing their
extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he
acceded to their request to act as counsel after
apprising them of their constitutional rights and
after being convinced that the accused were
under no compulsion to give their confession.
The excuse proferred by the respondent does not
exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which prohibits a lawyer from representing
conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was
representing Avila and Ilo, two of the accused in
the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he
was representing the family of the murder victim.
Clearly, his representation of opposing clients in
the murder case invites suspicion of double-
dealing and infidelity to his clients.
What is unsettling is that respondent assisted in
the execution by the two accused of their
confessions whereby they admitted their
participation in various serious criminal offenses
knowing fully well that he was retained previously
by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent,
who presumably knows the intricacies of the law,
should have exercised his better judgment before
conceding to accused’s choice of counsel. It did
not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting
as their counsel and instead, he even assisted
them in executing the extrajudicial confession.
FINAL PENALTY: Suspended for THREE YEARS.
GONZALES VS SAGUCIO
FACTS: Gonzales filed a case for sum of money
and damages before the MTCC where she was
represented by the law firm CABUCANA,
CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW
OFFICE, with Atty. Edmar Cabucana handling the
case and herein respondent as an
associate/partner. on February 26, 2001, a
decision was rendered in the civil case ordering
the losing party to pay Gonzales the amount of
P17,310.00 with interest and P6,000.00 as
attorney’s fees. Sheriff Romeo Gatcheco, failed to
fully implement the writ of execution issued in
connection with the judgment which prompted
Gonzales to file a complaint against the said
sheriff with this Court.
In September 2003, Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife
went to the house of Gonzales. They harassed
Gonzales and asked her to execute an affidavit of
desistance regarding her complaint before this
Court. Gonzales thereafter filed against the
Gatchecos criminal cases for trespass, grave
threats, grave oral defamation, simple coercion
and unjust vexation. Notwithstanding the
pendency of Civil Case No. 1-567, where
respondent’s law firm was still representing
Gonzales, herein respondent represented the
Gatchecos in the cases filed by Gonzales against
the said spouses.
R’S CONTENTION: His representation was only a
pro bono and that the spouses pleaded with him
as no other counsel was willing to take their
case. He entered his appearance in good faith
and opted to represent the spouses rather than
leave them defenseless.
HELD: violated RULE 15.03, CANON 15
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict
of interests in this case, as the civil case handled
by their law firm where Gonzales is the
complainant and the criminal cases filed by
Gonzales against the Gatcheco spouses are not
related, has no merit. The representation of
opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated,
constitutes conflict of interests or, at the very
least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which
this Court cannot allow.[30]
Respondent further argued that it was his brother
who represented Gonzales in the civil case and
not him, thus, there could be no conflict of
interests. We do not agree. As respondent
admitted, it was their law firm which represented
Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case,
the rule against representing conflicting interests
applies.
The claim of respondent that he acted in good
faith and with honest intention will also
not exculpate him as such claim does not
render the prohibition inoperative.[33]
In the same manner, his claim that he could not
turn down the spouses as no other lawyer
is willing to take their case cannot prosper
as it is settled that while there may be
instances where lawyers cannot decline
representation they cannot be made to
labor under conflict of interest between a
present client and a prospective one.[34]
Granting also that there really was no
other lawyer who could handle the
spouses’ case other than him, still he
should have observed the requirements
laid down by the rules by conferring with
the prospective client to ascertain as soon
as practicable whether the matter would
involve a conflict with another client then
seek the written consent of all concerned
after a full disclosure of the facts.[35]
These respondent failed to do thus
exposing himself to the charge of double-
dealing.
We note the affidavit of desistance filed by
Gonzales. However, we are not bound by
such desistance as the present case
involves public interest.[36] FINAL
PENALTY: fined – 2,000 with a STERN
WARNING
LIM VS VILLAROSA
FACTS: Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law,
namely Dennis G. Jalbuena married to her
daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and
Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein
complainant married to her daughter,
Cristina J. Lim. Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni
organized a corporation namely the Penta
Resorts Corporation (PRC) where she
owned almost ninety seven percent (97%).
In reality PRC is a single proprietorship
belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni.The only
property of the corporation is the
Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely
through the effort of the spouses Jalbuena
on that parcel of land now claimed by the
Cabiles family. Sometime on the year
1997 the case above-cited (Civil Case No.
97-9865) was filed before the court
against the sisters. That [he], being
RETAINED counsel of the spouses Dennis
and Carmen J. Jalbuena was
RECOMMENDED by the spouses to the
sisters to answer the complaint filed
against them.
As counsel to the sisters, [he] filed a Motion for
Extension Of Time To File Answer and
ultimately, [he] filed an Answer With
Counter-Claim And Prayer For Issuance Of
Writ Of Preliminary Injunction.
SIBULO VS CABRERA
FACTS: In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito1
versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al."
defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained the
services of the herein respondent as his
lawyer. Subsequently, however, the
respondent also entered his appearance
as counsel for plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in
the same case, without withdrawing his
appearance as counsel for defendant
Reynaldo Marcelo. In view of such
development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former
counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the
Manila Regional Trial Court a motion to
disqualify the respondent on the ground of
unethical conduct.2 Finding merit in the
said motion, the trial court ordered the
disqualification of respondent in the case.
Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the
aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209,
 brought the present administrative
complaint against respondent, praying for
the latter's removal from or suspension in
the practice of law, on the ground of
unethical practice/conduct.
HELD: Violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15
Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing
complained of, when he stated in his
Answer that he "merely accepted a case
from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he]
was the counsel as intervenor of one of
the defendants." Such a revelation is a
categorical admission that he
(respondent) represented two conflicting
interests, which representations or
appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03
of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his
client in all aspects of subject civil case.
When he agreed to represent the
defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in
the same case, he could no longer serve
either of his said clients faithfully, as his
duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict
with his duty to the defendant. The
relation of attorney and client is based on
trust, so that double dealing which could
sometimes lead to treachery, should be
avoided.
FINAL PENALTY: FINED in the amount of TEN
THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a
warning
DE GUZMAN VS DE DIOS
FACTS: In 1995, complainant engaged the
services of respondent as counsel in order to
form a corporation, which would engage in hotel
and restaurant business in Olongapo City. On
December 15, 1997, the corporation required
complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed shares
of stock amounting to two million two hundred
and thirty five thousand pesos (P2,235,000.00) or
22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997.
On January 29, 1998,3 complainant received
notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent
shares and a copy of a board resolution dated
January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.4
Complainant soon learned that her shares had
been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the
incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
complainant from the corporation completely.
While respondent rose to be president of the
corporation, complainant lost all her life's savings
invested therein. Complainant alleged that she
relied on the advice of Atty. de Dios and believed
that as the majority stockholder, Atty. de Dios
would help her with the management of the
corporation. Meantime, Mr. Del Rosario
transferred one hundred (100) shares to
respondent in payment of legal services as
evidenced by a Deed of Waiver and Transfer of
Corporate Shares of Stock.
Respondent claims that there was no attorney-
client relationship between her and complainant.
The claim has no merit. It was complainant who
retained respondent to form a corporation. She
appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant.
HELD: There was evidence of collusion between
the board of directors and respondent. Indeed,
the board of directors now included respondent
as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary,
Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as
treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director.7 The
present situation shows a clear case of conflict of
interest of the respondent. 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.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition
against representing conflicting interests and
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.10
As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to
do no falsehood or consent to its commission and
to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the
best of her knowledge and discretion. The
lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and
violation thereof is a ground for suspension,
disbarment, or other disciplinary action.12 The
acts of respondent Atty. de Dios are clearly in
violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this
Court will not tolerate.
FINAL PENALTY: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS
TEODOSIO VS NAVA
FACTS: Respondent Mercedes Nava alleged that
petitioner acted as counsel for Melanie
Batislaong in several casesfiled by them
against Melanie Batislaong and herself,
respondent Mercedes Nava. in various
branches of the Iloilo City Regional Trial
Court while acting as counsel for Letecia
Espinosa and Ma. Gilda Palma in cases.
While the complaints against them were pending
preliminary investigation, Espinosa and
Palma hired petitioner’s services in
 seeking the annulment of certain trust
receipt agreements allegedly falsified by
Nava
HELD: 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.
Under Canon 6 of the previous Canons of
Professional Ethics, a lawyer is deemed to
represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which
duty to another client requires him to oppose.
[16] The rule is designed to remove from
attorneys the opportunity to take advantage of
the secrets of clients obtained during the
existence of the client-attorney relation.
Based on the facts of this case, we hold that
petitioner’s conduct does not amount to a
violation of the rule. The records bear out
petitioner’s contention that based on the causes
of action of the cases involving Melanie
Batislaong on one hand and Letecia Espinosa and
Ma. Gilda Palma on the other, he could
simultaneously represent them without any
possible violation of the client-attorney
confidentiality. In the cases filed by him for
Espinosa and Palma (Civil Case Nos. 21511 and
21493), it is only Nava against whom the former
have an adverse interest as it was the latter who
allegedly falsified the trust receipt agreements to
the prejudice of Palma and Espinosa. Indeed,
were it not for the offer of Palma and Espinosa to
settle their obligation, there would have been no
need to implead Batislaong as a defendant. On
the other hand, in the other cases in which
Batislaong is a party, either as plaintiff in Civil
Case No. 21417 or as an accused in Criminal
Case Nos. 78200, 79688, and 44181, neither
Palma nor Espinosa are parties. Indeed, it is
Nava who is the respondent in the first case and
the private complainant in the last two criminal
cases. Under the foregoing circumstances, the
danger that petitioner may abuse his clients’
confidences to the detriment of the other is
absent.
PORMENTO VS PONTEVERDA
FACTS: The rift between complainant and
respondent began when complainant's
counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648 filed
with the RTC 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 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 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.
In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at
Escalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed of
Declaration of Heirship and Sale of said
land was prepared and notarized by
respondent. Since there was another
person who claims ownership of the
property, complainant alleges that he
heeded respondent's advice to build a
small house on the property and to allow
his (complainant's) nephew and his family
to occupy the house in order for
complainant to establish his possession of
the said property. Subsequently,
complainant's nephew refused to vacate
the property prompting the former to file
an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial
Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental,
docketed as Civil Case No. 528.
Respondent acted as the counsel of
complainant's nephew.
HELD: 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. Where, however, the subject
matter of the present suit between the
lawyer's new client and his former client is
in some way connected with that of the
 former client's action, the lawyer may
have to contend for his new client that
which he previously opposed as counsel
for the former client or to use against the
latter information confided to him as his
counsel.
In the present case, we find no conflict of
interests when respondent represented herein
complainant's nephew and other members of his
family in the ejectment case, and in the criminal
complaint, filed by herein complainant against
them. The only established participation
respondent had with respect to the parcel of land
purchased by complainant, is that he was the one
who notarized the deed of sale of the said land.
On that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow
that respondent obtained any information from
herein complainant that can be used to the
detriment of the latter in the ejectment case he
filed.
While complainant alleges that it was respondent
who advised him to allow his nephew to
temporarily occupy the property in order to
establish complainant's possession of said
property as against another claimant, no
corroborating evidence was presented to prove
this allegation. Defendant, in his answer to the
complaint for ejectment, raised the issue as to
the right of the vendor to sell the said land in
favor of complainant. However, we find this
immaterial because what is actually in issue in
the ejectment case is not the ownership of the
subject lot but the ownership of the house built
on the said lot. Furthermore, the subject matter
of I.S. Case No. 99-188 filed by complainant
against his nephew and other members of his
family involves several parts of trucks owned by
herein complainant.This case is not in any way
connected with the controversy involving said
parcel of land. In fine, with respect to Civil Case
No. 528 and I.S. Case No. 99-188, complainant
failed to present substantial evidence to hold
respondent liable for violating the prohibition
against representation of conflicting 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.
Nonetheless, be that as it may, 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.
Thus, respondent should have declined
employment in Criminal Case No. 3159 so as to
avoid suspicion that he used in the criminal
action any information he may have acquired in
Civil Case No. 1648. Moreover, nothing on record
would show that respondent fully apprised
complainant and his new clients and secured or
at least tried to secure their consent when he
took the defense of the accused in Criminal Case
No. 3159. Thus, we find respondent guilty of
misconduct for representing conflicting interests.
FINAL PENALTY: GUILTY of representing
conflicting interests and is hereby FINED in the
amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
NAZARIA VS HERNANDEZ
FACTS: Sometime in 1961, complainant’s
husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husband’s
numerous creditors demanded payments of his
loans. Complainant engaged the legal services of
Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent. He advised
her to give him her land titles covering Lots 848-
A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he
could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors.
He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale
in his favor without any monetary or valuable
consideration. Complainant agreed on condition
that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds
pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and
1141-A, likewise located in Zamboanga City,
which were mortgaged to her creditors. When the
mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the
lots. Again, he convinced her to execute deeds of
sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,
respondent became the registered owner of all
the lots belonging to complainant. Sometime in
1974, complainant came to know that respondent
did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he
paid her creditors with his own funds and had her
land titles registered in his name, depriving her of
her real properties worth millions.
HELD: violated CANON 16 AND CANON 17
CANON 16 - Respondent breached this Canon.
His acts of acquiring for himself complainant’s
lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts
constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong,
a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not
mere error in judgment.3 Such conduct on the
part of respondent degrades not only himself but
also the name and honor of the legal profession.
He violated this Court’s mandate that lawyers
must at all times conduct themselves, especially
in their dealing with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.
CANON 17 - The records show that complainant
reposed such high degree of trust and confidence
in herein respondent, that when she engaged his
services, she entrusted to him her land titles and
allowed him to sell her lots, believing that the
proceeds thereof would be used to pay her
creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust
and confidence when he did not sell her
properties to others but to himself and spent his
own money to pay her obligations. As correctly
observed by Investigating IBP Commissioner
Lydia Navarro, respondent is duty-bound to
render a detailed report to the complainant on
how much he sold the latter’s lots and the
amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had he
sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could
have earned more. Records show that she did not
receive any amount from respondent. Clearly,
respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly
in his duty as complainant’s counsel.
Undoubtedly, respondent’s conduct has made
him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has
definitely fallen below the moral bar when he
engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and
grossly immoral acts. We have been exacting in
our demand for integrity and good moral
character of members of the Bar. They are
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from
any act or omission which might lessen the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal
profession. Membership in the legal profession is
a privilege.7 And whenever it is made to appear
that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust
and confidence of his clients and the public, it
becomes not only the right but also the duty of
this Court, which made him one of its officers and
gave him the privilege of ministering within its
Bar, to withdraw the privilege.8 Respondent, by
his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a
member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.
FINAL PENALTY: DISBARRED.
MARISSA VS MACARILAY
FACTS: Sometime in year 2000, Complainant
and one Jenelyn Balaoro ('Balaoro') bought a lot
from one ('Mohammad'). Complainant and
Balaoro, however, could not register the sale with
the Register of Deeds and cause the transfer of
the title in their names because Mohammad
failed to surrender the owner's duplicate
certificate of title for said lot. Subsequently,
Complainant learned from Reina Ong ('Ong') that
Mohammad had mortgaged the said lot to a third
party. in January or February 2002, Ong
introduced Complainant to Vic Paule ('Paule'), an
employee of the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City. Complainant allegedly gave Paule P8,000.00
for the help the latter will give her in securing a
copy of the mortgage contract concerned. On
March 18, 2002, Complainant, Balaoro and Ong
met with Paule and proceeded to the office of
Respondent, the lawyer recommended by Paule.
During said meeting, Complainant consulted
Respondent about the problem concerning the
transfer of the subject lot title.
R advised that they should file an adverse claim
with the Register of Deeds. Respondent, however,
required an acceptance fee of P20,000.00. Thus,
on the same day, Complainant issued a check to
R for P20,000.00 as payment of the acceptance
fee. Subsequently, R asked Complainant for
P3,000.00 as notarization fee and P5,000.00 as
filing fee for the adverse claim. On April 5, 2002,
Complainant and Balaoro went to R’s office and
paid said amounts. On the same day, R himself
typed the affidavit of adverse claim in the
presence of Complainant and Balaoro and the
latter subsequently signed the same. On May 16,
2002, upon R’s advice, Complainant gave R
another P20,000.00 in check as filing fee for the
suits to be filed against Mohammad.
Complainant inquired from R about the status of
the case(s) against Mohammad but the latter
could not give any further developments other
than that the affidavit of adverse claim had
already been filed with the Register of Deeds. It
appears that R was having problems about the
fact that Mohammad's whereabouts are unknown
and R was not sure what to do about it.
Subsequently, Complainant received assurance
from R that the case against Mohammad was
already filed in court although Respondent could
not identify the particular court except that it was
pending in the sala of one Judge Regala. Upon
verification with the courts and the fiscal's office
[at] Quezon City, Complainant learned that no
case, whether criminal or civil, was ever filed by
Respondent against Mohammad. Complainant
then called Respondent regarding her findings
and even suggested service of summons by
publication upon Mohammad, having receiv[ed]
advice from one Atty. Noel Sorreda ('Atty.
Sorreda') that such manner of service is
appropriate in view of the lack of information
regarding Mohammad's whereabouts.
Respondent, however, immediately got angry so
Complainant did not insist on her inquiries and
suggestions.
On March 24, 2003, upon Complainant's request,
Atty. Sorreda called Respondent to inquire about
the specific branch where the case against
Mohammad was supposedly pending. Respondent
got angry and hung up the phone. Upon learning
this, Complainant authorized Atty. Sorreda to
terminate the services of Respondent on her
behalf. Atty. Sorreda called Respondent a second
time but was able to talk only with presumably
Respondent's lady-receptionist or secretary
whom Atty. Sorreda requested to just relay to
Respondent his message regarding the
termination of Respondent's services. On March
26, 2003, Atty. Sorreda, upon Complainant's
request, sent a letter to Respondent confirming
the verbal termination of services, and also
asking for the turnover of the pertinent
documents that were with Respondent.
Subsequently, Complainant herself wrote
Respondent a letter affirming the contents of the
earlier letter of Atty. Sorreda. In a letter dated
April 4, 2003, Respondent denied the fact of his
termination by Atty. Sorreda and invited
Complainant to his office to talk things over.
Complainant responded through Atty. Sorreda in
a letter dated May 16, 2003 by reiterating the
termination of Respondent's services and the
request for the turnover of documents. In a letter
dated May 23, 2003, Respondent enclosed the
documents requested. Since it appears from the
documents turned over that Respondent never
filed a suit against Mohammad, Complainant
wrote Respondent demanding the return of the
money she paid for the anticipated legal services
Respondent was supposed to render but which
were not actually rendered. Respondent's failure
to respond to said letter prompted Complainant
[to] send a follow-up letter dated July 16, 2003.
Instead of returning the money, Respondent
wrote Complainant a letter dated July 14, 2003
denying receipt of any amount from Complainant
other than the P20,000.00 acceptance fee and
demanding payment of alleged unpaid attorney's
fee of P40,000 and fees for notarial services of
P3,000.00 which Respondent allegedly advanced
for Complainant. Thus, Complainant filed the
present administrative case for disciplinary
action, likewise praying for the return of the
money she paid for the anticipated legal services
Respondent was supposed to render but which
were not actually rendered.
HELD: violated Canons 15, 16, 17 and 18
A lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in
nature;8 it is delicate, exacting and confidential.9
It requires a high standard of conduct and
demands utmost fidelity, candor, fairness, and
good faith.10 The legal profession demands
vigilance and attention expected of a "good
father of a family."11 Lawyers should adopt the
norm expected of people of good intentions. In
brief, they must always be protective of the
interests of their clients as good parents would be
protective of their own families.
These duties are further stressed in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically in the
following pertinent provisions:
"CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
"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.
x x x.
"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.
"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."
Admittedly, respondent received the amount of
P20,000 as acceptance fee for the cases he had
agreed to file on behalf of complainant. Plainly,
he was less than candid in his dealings with his
client; he displayed lack of honesty and fidelity to
her cause. Sufficiently established were the
following acts: (1) despite his receipt on May 16,
2002, of P20,000 for filing fees, he did not file the
cases he had agreed to handle; (2) he deceived
complainant when he lied by saying that a civil
complaint had been filed in the sala of one "Judge
Regala" of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City; (3) respondent refused to return the money
he had received for the filing fees. These
misrepresentations, lies and lapses constituted a
breach of his sworn duty as a lawyer and of the
ethical standards he was required to honor and
observe.
respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to
him by failing to file the complaints as he was
supposed to. Unbelievable is his claim that the
complaints were ready as early as April 5, 2002,
but that these were not filed anyway because
complainant had refused to sign them, absent the
correct address of the defendant (Albaria
Mohammad).
Likewise established was the obvious fact that
the only legal service rendered by respondent
consisted of the notarization of the Deed of Sale
covering the property purchased by complainant
and the filing of the adverse claim. We agree with
Commissioner Villadolid that P8,000 was
sufficient compensation for the services actually
rendered. Hence, respondent must return to
complainant the balance of P40,000 plus legal
interest.
The failure of respondent to discharge his duty
properly constitutes an infringement of ethical
standards and of his oath. Such failure makes him
answerable not just to his client, but also to this
Court, to the legal profession, and to the general
public.2

First, evidence abound that it was complainant FINAL PENALTY: SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOS,
who was insistent that the cases be filed. She ORDERED to return to Marissa L. Macarilay the
repeatedly inquired about the case, but amount of P40,000, with interest at 6 percent per
respondent would not give her any clear answer. annum from May 16, 2002, until full payment.
Later on, he lied to her by saying that the
complaint was pending in the sala of one Judge
Regala. His deception on top of his failure to file
the cases were raised in the letter dated March
26, 2003,20 written by Atty. Noel Sorreda, her new
counsel. In his April 4, 2003 reply,21 respondent
did not mention anything about the complaints
that had allegedly been prepared as early as April
5, 2002.

Second, his alleged lack of knowledge of the

correct address of the defendant is not a
hindrance to the filing of a complaint. Indeed,
such address is material to the service of
summons22 which, however, presupposes that a
complaint has been properly filed in court.
Furthermore, Section 14 of Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court23 provides for remedies when the
defendant's address is unknown. Thus,
respondent should have nevertheless filed the
complaint, especially because complainant had
already given him payment for the filing fees. His
attempt to cover up his negligence by wrongfully
shifting the blame to her cannot be countenanced
by this Court.

Finally, respondent should have returned the

money to complainant following his failure to file
the cases.24 Where the client gives money to the
lawyer for a specific purpose -- such as to file an
action or to appeal an adverse judgment -- the
latter should, upon failure to do so, immediately
return it to the former.25 The unjustified
withholding of funds belonging to the client
warrants the imposition of disciplinary action
against the lawyer.26