CANON 14

VILLAFUERTE v. CORTEZ A.C. No. 3455, April

14, 1998
FACTS: Complainant Arsenio A. Villafuerte seeks
the disbarment of Atty. Dante H. Cortez, for neglect
in the handling of his cases, despite the latter's
receipt of P1,750.00 acceptance and retainer fees.
Sometime in January 1987, complainant went to the
office of respondent lawyer to discuss his case for
"reconveyance." During their initial meeting,
complainant tried to reconstruct before respondent
the incidents of the case merely from memory
prompting the latter to ask complainant to instead
return at another time with the records of the case.
Complainant returned but still without the records.
He requested respondent to accept the case, paying
to the latter P1,750.00 representing the acceptance
fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainer fee from
January 1987.
The respondent averred that he accepted the money
with much reluctance and only upon the condition
that complainant would get the records of the case
from, as well as secure the withdrawal of
appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, the former counsel
of complainant.
The complainant allegedly never showed up
thereafter until November 1989 when he went to the
office of respondent but only to leave a copy of a writ
of execution in a case for ejectment, which,
according to respondent, was never mentioned to
him by complainant. Indeed, said respondent, he
had never entered his appearance in the said
ejectment case.
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP (CBD):
- concluded that the facts established would indicate
sufficiently a case of neglect of duty on the part of
respondent. It recommended to the IBP Board of
Governors the suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for three months.
IBP Board of Governors:
- adopted and approved the CBD’s recommendation
ISSUE: WON respondent should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. The Court reduced the recommended
period of suspension of the IBP from three months
to one month.
The Court agrees with the IBP-CBD in its findings
and conclusion that respondent lawyer has
somehow been remiss in his responsibilities.
A lawyer-client relationship has arisen between
respondent and complainant. His acceptance of the
payment effectively bars him from altogether
disclaiming the existence of an attorney-client
relationship between them. It would seem that
respondent hardly has exerted any effort to find out
what might have happened to his client's cases.
A lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires
him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that
should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert
his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the
law, the interests of his client.
Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without
fault himself. He cannot expect his case to be
properly and intelligently handled without listening to
his own counsel and extending full cooperation to
him. It is not right for complainant to wait for almost
two years and to deal with his lawyer only after
receiving an adverse decision.
DOCTRINE: The Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum
than when it has stated that a "lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence," decreeing
further that he "shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him."
Penalty: SUSPENSION for a period of one month
from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition of
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Artemio Endaya v. Atty. Wilfredo Oca A.C. No.
3967, Sept. 3, 2003
FACTS: Atty. Oca was assigned by the PAO in
Batangas City to handle the unlawful detainer case
where Artemio Endaya and his spouse were
defendants. During the preliminary conference of the
case, Oca already appeared as counsel for the
spouses and his first act was to move for the
amendment of the answer previously filed by his
clients. His motion was denied by the judge and was
ordered to submit affidavits and position papers
within 10 days from receipt of the order.
Oca failed to submit the required affidavits and
position paper but the judge dismissed the case on
the ground that the plaintiffs were not the real
parties-in-interest. The losing party appealed the
case to the RTC and again, Oca failed to file the
memoranda that the court ordered the parties to file.
This resulted in the reversal of the earlier decision
made by the lower court.
Endaya complained to Oca about the adverse
decision but the latter denied receiving a copy
thereof. Upon inquiry with the Branch Clerk of Court,
however, complainant found out that respondent
received his copy back on September 14, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION/S of Appropriate Bodies
Office of the Bar Confidant: Oca was negligent in
handing the case and recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for ONE
MONTH.
IBP: Commissioner Fernandez concurred with the
findings and recommendation of the Office of the
Bar Confidant.
IBP Board of Governors: They adopted the report of
Commissioner Fernandez in their Resolution.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS OR BODIES
In re: Unlawful Detainer case against Apolonia H.
Hornilla, Pedro Hernandez, Santiago Hernandez
and Dominador Hernandez
MCTC: Case dismissed because the plaintiffs
(Hornilla et al.) were not the real parties-in- interest
RTC: Decision reversed, RTC held that plaintiffs
were the co-owners of the property in dispute and as
such are parties-in-interest.
ISSUE: WON Oca neglected his duties as a lawyer
when he stubbornly failed to comply with court
orders in the submission of pleadings
HELD: Yes. The lawyer has a duty to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client. Once a lawyer
takes on a client's case, he owes it to his client to
see the case to the end. Whatever the lawyer's
reason is for accepting a case, he is duty bound to
do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it.
Moreover, a lawyer continues to be a counsel of
record until the lawyer-client relationship is
terminated either by the act of his client or his own
act, with permission of the court. Until such time, the
lawyer is expected to do his best for the interest of
his client.
Oca was directed by the MCTC to file affidavits and
position paper by the MCTC, and appeal
memorandum by the RTC. He obviously had no
choice but to comply. However, he did not do so.
The Court believes such acts show lack of diligence
and commitment and evinces absence of respect for
the authority of this Court and the other courts
involved. The above acts constituted negligence and
malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 of the CPR.
PENALTY IMPOSED IN DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Suspension from the practice of law for 2 months
from notice
DOCTRINE: When a lawyer violates his duties to his
client, the courts, the legal profession and the public,
he engages in conduct, which is both unethical and
unprofessional.
CANON 15
Simon Paz v. Atty. Pepito Sanchez A.C. no. 6125,
Sept. 19, 2006
FACTS: Paz and his partners engaged the services
of Atty. Sanchez to assist them in the purchase and
documentation of such purchase of several parcels
of land from tenant farmers in Pampanga as well as
defend Paz’s claim on the properties against the
claim of George Lizares.
On May 2000 after the termination of their lawyer-
client relationship, Sanchez filed a complaint before
the Department of Agrarian Reform Board (DARAB)
on behalf of Isidro Dizon for annulment of TCT No.
420127-R in the name of Paz and his partners. Paz
then explained that the subject property was among
the properties purchased by them with Sanchez’s
assistance. Later on June 23, 2003, Sanchez filed a
civil case against Paz and Sycamore Venture Corp.
before the RTC, San Fernando, Pampanga for
annulment of TCT No. 483629-R while the DARAB
case was pending.
With that, Paz filed the administrative complaint
alleging conflict of interests and use of malicious
machination in the filing of the DARAB CASE.
RECOMMENDATION/S of Appropriate Bodies
IBP: Comm. San Juan found Sanchez guilty of
violating the prohibition against representing
conflicting interests.
IBP Board of Governors: Adopted findings of Comm.
San Juan and recommended imposition of ONE
YEAR SUSPENSION from the practice of law as a
penalty.
ISSUE: WON Sanchez represented conflicting
interests when he later represented Isidro Dizon in
the DARAB Case
HELD: Yes. Lawyers are deemed to represent
conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is
their duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires them to oppose.
The Court noted that by Sanchez’s own admission,
Paz and Dizon were both his clients at the time
when he filed the DARAB case on behalf of Dizon.
Likewise, Sanchez did not specifically deny that he
represented conflicting interests, that he merely
offered to justify his actuations by stating that he felt
it was his “duty and responsibility” to file the case.
Good faith and honest intentions do not excuse the
violation of this prohibition. In representing both
complainant and Dizon, respondent's duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his clients was
placed under a cloud of doubt. In the eyes of the
Court, Sanchez should have inhibited himself from
representing Dizon against Paz in the DARAB and
RTC cases to avoid conflict of interest.
PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE DISPOSITIVE
PORTION: Suspension from the practice of law for
ONE YEAR and a warning that commission of a
similar act in the future will merit a more severe
penalty
DOCTRINE: Conflict of interest applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present clients in the
same action or in an unrelated action; Good faith
and honest intentions do not excuse any violation of
the prohibition.
GAMILLA V. MARIÑO, JR.
FACTS: This disbarment case emanated from an
intra-union leadership dispute some seventeen (17)
years ago that spilled over to the instant complaint
alleging impropriety and double- dealing in the
disbursement of sums of money entrusted by the
University of Sto. Tomas to respondent Atty.
Eduardo J. Mariño Jr. as president of the UST
Faculty Union and his core of officers and directors
for distribution among faculty members of the
university.
On 2 July 1997 complainants filed the instant
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Mario
accusing him of
(a) compromising their entitlements under the 1986
collective bargaining agreement without the
knowledge, consent or ratification of the union
members, and worse, for only P2,000,000.00 when
they could have received more than P9,000,000.00;
(b) failing to account for the P7,000,000.00 received
by him and other officers and directors in the UST
Faculty Union under the 1990 compromise
agreement;
(c) lack of transparency in the administration and
distribution of the remaining balance of the
P42,000,000.00 package under the 1992
memorandum of agreement;
(d) refusal to remit and account for the
P4,200,000.00 in favor of the faculty members
although the amount was denominated as attorneys
fees. Complainants asserted that respondent
violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1; Rule 15.08
of Canon 15; Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of
Canon 16; and Rule 20.04 of Canon 20, of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Report of IBP Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro:
found the complaint meritorious and suspended
respondent Atty. Mario from the practice of law until
such time that the required detailed accounting of
the questioned remittances made by UST to the
UST [Faculty Union] during his incumbency as
President and
Legal Counsel has been officially submitted and
reported to the UST [Faculty Union] and to the IBP
IBP Board of Governors: adopted and approved
the report of IBP Commissioner.
In the meantime, the Regional Director found merit
in the two (2) complaints before the BLR and
ordered the expulsion of respondent and the other
officers and directors of the union led by respondent
Atty. Mario because of their failure to account for the
balance of the P42,000,000.00 that had been
delivered to them by the management of UST, and
their collection of exorbitant and illegal attorneys
fees amounting to P4,200,000.00.
On 9 March 2000 the Bureau of Labor Relations in
the appeal set aside the Order of the Regional
Director. It found that the balance of the
P42,000,000.00 which UST delivered to the UST
Faculty Union had been fully and adequately
accounted for by respondent and the other officers
and directors of the union. Nonetheless, the Bureau
of Labor Relations ordered respondent and the other
officers and directors of the union to distribute the
attorneys fees of P4,200,000.00 among the faculty
members and to immediately hold the elections for
union officers and directors in view of the expiration
of their respective terms of office.
On 16 March 2001 the Decision of the Bureau of
Labor Relations was affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was
elevated to this Court, docketed G.R. No. 149763,
where the case is allegedly still pending resolution.
On 25 September 2002 we received the detailed
Report and Recommendation of IBP Commissioner
Lydia A. Navarro and the IBP Resolution of 3
August 2002 of the Board of Governors adopting
and approving the Report which recommended the
lifting of Atty. Marios suspension from law practice
since he had sufficiently accounted for the funds in
question.
ISSUES: (1) WON respondent failed to avoid conflict
of interests; (2) Whether respondent violated Canon
15 of the CPR.
RULING: (1) YES. In fine, there are ethical lapses
on the part of respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mariño,
Jr. in the manner by which he secured the
P7,000,000.00 by virtue of the compromise
agreement and the P4,200,000.00 attorney’s fees
under the memorandum of agreement. Although the
record shows that the Bureau of Labor Relations
found respondent as having adequately accounted
for the disbursement of the funds which the UST
Faculty Union received through the series of
agreements with the management of UST, this Court
believes that Atty. Mariño failed to avoid conflict of
interests, first, when he negotiated for the
compromise agreement wherein he played the
diverse roles of union president, union attorney and
interested party being one of the dismissed
employees seeking his own restitution, and
thereafter, when he obtained the attorney’s fees of
P4,200,000.00 without full prior disclosure of the
circumstances justifying such claim to the members
of the UST Faculty Union. As one of the sixteen (16)
union officers and directors seeking compensation
from the University of Santo Tomas for their illegal
dismissal, respondent was involved in obvious
conflict of interests when in addition he chose to act
as concurrent lawyer and president of the UST
Faculty Union in forging the compromise agreement.
The test of conflict of interest among lawyers is
“whether the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance thereof.” In the same manner, it
is undoubtedly a conflict of interests for an attorney
to put himself in a position where self-interest
tempts, or worse, actually impels him to do less than
his best for his client.
(2) YES. Regardless of the motivations of
respondent in perfecting the compromise agreement
or demanding the inexplicable attorney’s fees, his
actions were not transparent enough to allow the
bargaining unit ample information to decide freely
and intelligently. Clearly, he violated Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility requiring every
lawyer to “observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients.”
Lawyers are vanguards in the bastion of justice so
they are without doubt expected to have a bigger
dose of service-oriented conscience and a little less
of self-interest. As indispensable part of the system
of administering justice, attorneys must comply
strictly with the oath of office and the canons of
professional ethics—a duty more than imperative
during these critical times when strong and
disturbing criticisms are hurled at the practice of law.
The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin
with the simple act of openness and candor in
dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter
towards the ideal that a lawyer’s vocation is not
synonymous with an ordinary business proposition
but a serious matter of public interest.
PENALTY: Responded is reprimanded for his
misconduct with a warning that a more drastic
punishment will be imposed on him upon a repetition
of the same act.
PASAY LAW AND CONSCIENCE UNION, INC. v.
PAZ
FACTS: The Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc.
(PLACU) filed a disbarment case against Atty. David
Paz. The complainant charged respondent with
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, gross
immoral conduct and/or disloyalty to the RP.
In the course of the investigation then being
conducted by the “Charlie Division” of the
Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government
Operations, otherwise known as the PARGO, on the
complaint of Dr. Irineo P . Sia for antigraft against
the then ex-Mayor Pablo Cuneta of Pasay City, the
respondent, David D.C. Paz, was then PARGO’s
Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor, as well as the
head of the aforesaid “Charlie Division”. The
respondent enlisted the help of Dr. Irineo P. Sia and
Atty. Galileo P.Brion in the gathering of evidence
which included PLACU’s copies of the records of
Civil Case No. 72967 of the Court of First Instance
of Manila, entitled “Vicente D. Isip vs. The Pasay
City Government, et al.” Respondent also
administered oaths to some persons who had given
written statements before the P ARGO investigators.
Later on, after respondent had resigned from the
PARGO sometime in January 1970 and on the basis
of the investigation conducted by the PARGO on the
aforementioned antigraft complaint of Dr. Sia, the
PARGO’s successor, the Complaints and
Investigation Office (CIO) filed an antigraft charge
and another charge for technical malversation both
against Pablo Cuneta and others with the Pasay City
Fiscal’s Office.

On November 13 and 23, 1970, during the

preliminary investigation by the Pasay City Fiscal’s
Office, the respondent entered his appearance,
participated and orally argued therein as one of
the counsels of Pablo Cuneta. While in
subsequent hearings thereof, the respondent no
longer appeared as counsel for Cuneta, but it was
only after his appearance had been questioned by
Atty. Brion. Petitioner argues that there was then a
relationship of attorney and client between
respondent and the government and that for having
appeared twice, participated and orally argued as
counsel for Pablo Cuneta during the preliminary
investigation of the charges for antigraft and
technical malversation filed by the CIO (successor of
PARGO) against said Pablo Cuneta and others
before the Pasay City Fiscal’s Office, the respondent
violated Section 6 of the Canons of Legal Ethics and
Section 20 (e) of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
Respondent Paz alleged that 1) he did not
participate in the investigation of the Cuneta antigraft
case except to swear the witnesses; 2) that it is true
that respondent Paz appeared among a battery of
lawyers for Mayor Cuneta but when his appearance
was questioned by Atty. Brion, it was withdrawn; 3)
and that the antigraft case against Mayor Cuneta
was finally dismissed.
ISSUE: WON Paz is guilty of charge of representing
clients with conflicting interests.
HELD: YES. The evidence has duly established that
the respondent, David D.C. Paz, as PARGO’s Legal
Officer and Legal Prosecutor and head of the
“Charlie Division”, took part in the investigation of
the antigraft case against ex-Mayor Cuneta by
administering oaths to witnesses and gathering
evidence. He acquired knowledge of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the antigraft case. The
respondent obtained confidential information and
learned of the evidence of the PARGO against ex-
Mayor Cuneta. There was undoubtedly a
relationship of attorney and client between the
respondent David D.C. Paz and the PARGO.
It is also a fact that at the early stages of the
preliminary investigation conducted by the City
Fiscal of Pasay of the antigraft case against ex-
Mayor Pablo Cuneta, the respondent appeared as
counsel for said Cuneta. This is the same antigraft
case investigated by the PARGO when the
respondent was head of the “Charlie Division”
thereof. That the respondent later withdrew his
appearances as counsel of Cuneta is of no moment.
He had already violated the Canons of Legal Ethics
and Sec. 20 (e) of Rule 138,Revised Rules of Court
which provides:
“Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys.—It is the duty of
an attorney:x x x x(e) To maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his knowledge and
approval.
The respondent has displayed a lack of concern
for his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the court.

Whatever may be said as to whether or not
respondent utilized against his former client
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 other side.
PENALTY: Respondent is suspended from the
practice of law for 2 months, with a warning that a
repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more
drastically.