CANON 15
matter, the Court finds that respondent
A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his client.
NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B.
PANTANOSAS, complainants,
VS.
ATTY. MIGUEL SABAJACAN
A. C. No. 4380, October 13, 1995
FACTS:
-Sometime in October 1994, complainants were
informed by the Register of Deeds of CDO City
that the duplicate of title covering their lands
were entrusted to the office secretary of the
respondent who in turn entrusted the same to
respondent.
-Respondent admitted and confirmed to the
complainants that their titles are in his custody
but when demanded to deliver the said titles to
the complainant in a formal demand letter,
respondent refused without any justification to
give their titles (and) when confronted,
respondent challenged the complainants to file
any case in any court even in the SC.
-Respondent's challenge to them is a
manifestation of his arrogance taking undue
advantage of his legal profession over the
simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the
complainants.
-In spite of repeated demands, respondent still
failed and refused without justification to
surrender the said titles to the rightful owners,
which act is tantamount to willful and malicious
defiance of legal and moral obligations
emanating from his professional capacity as a
lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice,
to the prejudice and damage of the complainants
From the foregoing proceedings taken on this
admitted having taken possession of the
certificates of title of complainants but refused
to surrender the same despite demands made by
the latter.
-Respondent submitted photocopies of certain
certificates of title in an effort to explain why he
kept the certificates of title of complainants, for
the purpose of subdividing the property.
However, an examination of the same does not
show any connection thereof to respondent's
claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
appear to be entirely different from each other.
ISSUE/QUESTION:
Except for the ruling of the Court that the
respondent lawyer violated Canon 19, Rule 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, what
else did the respondent violated? Explain briefly.
HELD:
[Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall
employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting, or threaten to
present unfounded charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.]
Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon
15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer
shall impress upon his client the need for
compliance with the laws and principles of
fairness.
Instead, he unjustly refused to give to
complainants their certificates of titles
supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged
financial obligations to his client and presumably
to impress the latter of his power to do so.
RATIO:
-As a lawyer, respondent should know that there
are lawful remedies provided by law to protect
the interests of his client. The records do not
show that he or his client have availed of said
remedies. The Court finds that respondent has
not exercised the good faith and diligence
required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs
of their clients.
-The Court accordingly finds that respondent has
not exercised the good faith and diligence
required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs
of their clients. If complainants did have the
alleged monetary obligations to his client, that
does not warrant his summarily confiscating
their certificates of title since there is no showing
in the records that the same were given as
collaterals to secure the payment of a debt.
Neither is there any intimation that there is a
court order authorizing him to take and retain
custody of said certificates of title.
PENALTY: SUSPENDED from the practice of law
until he can duly show to this Court that the
disputed certificates of title have been returned
to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by
complainants, or can present a judicial order or
appropriate legal authority justifying the
possession by him or his client of said
certificates. He is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar or any other
administrative misconduct will be punished
more severely.
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.
VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, JR., COMPLAINANT, V.
ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, RESPONDENT
A.C. NO. 10911, 6 JUNE 2017
FACTS:
-Complainant filed a disbarment case against the
respondent for presenting falsified Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Number
without indicating the date of issue. The
respondent used the said falsified MCLE Number
in several legal pleadings against the
complainant.
-Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, a
certification was issued stating the respondent
has yet complied his MCLE requirements. The
complainant filed his complaint against the
respondent at the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for act of deliberately and
unlawfully misleading the courts, parties and
counsels concerned into believing that he had
complied with the MCLE requirements when in
truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and
grave misconduct. The complainant, thus,
prayed for the IBP to recommend respondent’s
disbarment.
-The respondent was given the chance to
comment on the complaint twice but the
respondent didn’t provide any response.
-Both the complainant and the respondent were
called for a hearing by the IBP-CBD – both parties
attend. The IBP-CBD then directed both parties
to submit position papers. Only the complainant
complied. The IBP-CBD recommend the
respondent be disbarred and his name stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys. The IBP-BOG adopted PENALTY: The Supreme Court disbarred the
and approved the IBP-CBD’s report. respondent and his name was ordered stricken
off from the Roll of Attorneys.
-The Court ruled the respondent guilty for
violating the Lawyer’s Oath in various Rules on
CPR.

Issue/QUESTION:

Specifically, with respondent’s used of false MCLE

compliance number in his pleadings, what Canon
Rule did he violated?

Held:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause

of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him.

It is the duty of the lawyer at the time of

retainer to disclose to the client all the
circumstances of his relations to the parties and
any interest in, or connection with, the
controversy which might influence the client in
the selection of counsel.

RATIO:

In using a false MCLE compliance number in his

pleadings, respondent also put his own clients at
risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to
the client's cause as pleadings with such false
information produce no legal effect. In so doing,
respondent violated his duty to his clients.

**CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with

competence and diligence.

Competence: sufficiency of lawyer’s qualification

to deal with the matter in question and includes
knowledge and skill and the ability to use them
effectively in the interest of the client.