|1

Problem Areas in Legal

Ethics
Week 2
ALITAGTAG v. GARCIA, A.C. No. 4738, [June 10, A notary who acknowledged a document that was a forgery
destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He
2003], 451 PHIL 420-428
does not deserve to continue as member of the bar.
FACTS:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent VIRGILIO R.
GARCIA guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of
This is petition for disbarment against respondent for the
continuing membership in the legal profession. We order him
falsification of a deed of donation and notarizing the same. In
DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
that said Deed the alleged donor is one Cesar Flores and the
the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
alleged donee is Gregorio Gamad Flores, the brother of Maria
Eugenia who is the wife of the respondent. Respondent was
later on the appointed attorney-in-fact by the donee, his TORRES v. JAVIER, A.C. No. 5910, [September
brother-in-law, with the broad power of administering and 21, 2005], 507 PHIL 397-409
selling the property donated. The subject Deed was notarized
by respondent Atty. Garcia however he did not submit a copy In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's
of the notarized deed of donation to the Office of the Clerk of language must be dignified and choice of language is
Court, Pasig City, as required. He explained that his "secretary important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his
at the time could have misplaced it inadvertently as it was she client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior
who has the responsibility of reporting [his] notarial documents, intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper.
or [his] father-in-law could have kept all the copies forgetting to
give [him] a copy. After examining several specimen Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
signatures, the PNP Crime Laboratory, Questioned Documents provides: "CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT
Section, found that the signature in the deed of donation is HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR
different from the usual signature of the donor, Cesar Flores. TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL
AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
ISSUE: COUNSEL. — Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred. otherwise improper." instructs that respondent's arguments in
his pleadings should be gracious to both the court and
HELD: opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentleman to another. The language vehicle
YES. Respondent's conduct warrants his severance from the does not run short of expressions which are emphatic but
legal profession for life. respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.
As a notary public, he is required to keep a copy of the
documents he notarized and he cannot impose this obligation FACTS:
to his subordinates, much less to his clients.
By complaint, Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad
"Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is Celestino (complainants) charged Atty. Jose Concepcion Javier
placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey (respondent) for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an
the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of attorney and/or violation of the lawyer's oath.
any." In the case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath
as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful The charges stemmed from the statements/remarks made by
conduct. He maintained that the signature of the donor was a respondent in the pleadings he filed in a petition for audit of all
genuine despite the finding of experts to the contrary. He also funds of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA),
tried to make a mockery of the legal profession by advancing as counsel for the therein petitioners UEFA then Treasurer
the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a copy of the Rosamarie Laman, and his wife-former UEFA President
document to the Clerk of Court was his secretary's fault. Eleonor Javier, before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR),
 |2

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against herein xxx xxx xxx
complainants (audit case), and from the pleadings filed by
respondent in another labor case as counsel for the one To repeat, if respondent Atty. Torres has any common sense at
hundred seventy six (176) faculty members of the University of all, he should stop making irrelevant, libelous and impertinent
the East complainants against herein complainant Atty. Ireneo allegations in his pleadings. This means changing his
L. Torres (attorney's fees case). "standard tactic" of skirting the main issues by injecting a web
or a maze of sham, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous
The complaint sets forth three (3) causes of action against matters.
respondent.
Respondent adds that he merely wanted to bring to the BLR's
1) The first cause of action is based on respondent's “Motion to attention that Atty. Torres had the habit of hurling baseless
Expedite” filed in the audit case which complainants allege accusations against his wife to embarrass her, including one
contained statements which are absolutely false, for unjust vexation and another for collection and damages
unsubstantiated, and with malicious imputation of crimes of both of which were dismissed after trial on the merits, thus
robbery, theft of UEFFA's funds, destruction or concealment of prompting him to state that "these dismissed cases indubitably
UEFA's documents and some other acts tending to cause indicate Atty. Torres' pattern of mental dishonesty."
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon their persons.
Respondent further claims that in his Answer in the same
2) As second cause of action, complainants allege that in the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres accused his client, Prof.
attorney's fees case, respondent, in his "Reply to Respondents Maguigad, of forging the signature of a notary public and of
(Torres and Marquez) Answer/Comment" filed before the "deliberately us[ing] a falsified/expired Community Tax
DOLE, used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and Certificate" in order to justify the dismissal of the case against
improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a him (Atty. Torres); 23 and that Atty. Torres continued harassing
quasi-judicial officer. his clients including his wife by filing baseless complaints for
falsification of public document.24 Hence, in defense of his
3) As third/last cause of action, complainants quote clients, the following statements in his Reply:
respondent's statement in the aforesaid Reply, to wit:
Respondent further concluded that lead petitioner Prof.
It is not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public Maguigad "falsified the said petition by causing it to appear that
asking their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to operate a he participated" in the falsification "when he did not in truth and
notarial office and sign for them. These girlfriends, nephews, in fact participate thereat" . . . obviously oblivious of the
etc. take affidavits, administer oaths and certify obvious that it is highly improbable for Prof. Maguigad to have
documents. . . ., forged the signature of the notary public. If he intended to forge
it, what was the big idea of doing so? To save Fifty Pesos
and allege that the statement is demeaning to the integrity of (P50.00) for notarial fee? Needless to say, the allegation that
the legal profession, "uncalled for and deserves censure, as lead (sic) petitioner Maguigad used a falsified Com. Tax Cert.
the same might shrink the degree of confidence and trust is patently unfounded and malicious.
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
legal profession and the solemnity of a notarial document." To the mind of the undersigned, this is the height of
irresponsibility, coming as it does from a member of the
Not wanting to allow his wife to be maligned by Atty. Torres, Philippine Bar. There is no evidence to charge them with
respondent admits having responded with a counter-attack in falsification of public document, i.e. the "verification" appended
his "Reply to Respondents (Torres and Marquez) to the present petition. They did not even sign it. The crime
Answer/Comment" wherein he stated: imputed is clearly bereft of merit. Frankly, the undersigned
thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law student would not
What kind of a lawyer is this Atty. Torres? The undersigned oblige with such a very serious charge.
feels that Atty. Torres just cannot kick the habit of injecting
immaterial, irrelevant, and impertinent matters in his pleadings. It is not uncommon for us trial lawyer[s] to hear notaries public
More than that, he lies through his teeth. The undersigned asking their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews, etc. to "operate"
thinks that if he has any common sense at all he should shut a notarial office and sign for them. These girlfriends, nephews,
up about his accusation that Prof. Javier spent more than half etc. take affidavits, administer oaths, and certify documents.
a million pesos for negotiation expenses . . . she obtained only Believing that the said "verification" was signed by an
P2-increase in union members salary, etc. because of the impostor-relative of the notary public [Atty. Jorge M. Ventayan]
pendency of the damage suit against him on this score. He through no fault of his client, Prof. Maguigad, the undersigned
easily forgets the sad chapter of his life as a practitioner when sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
he lost out to Prof. Javier in the petition for audit (Case No. (NBI). On May 2, 2002, an NBI agent called up the
NCR-OD-M-9401-004) which he filed to gain "pogi" points prior undersigned to inform him that he arrested in the area near UE
to the UEFA election in 1994. one Tancredo E. Ventayen whom he caught in flagrante delicto
 |3

notarizing an affidavit of loss and feigning to be Atty. Jorge M. W/N Atty. Javier should be reprimanded for the offensive
Ventayen, supposedly his uncle. 25 statements in his pleadings?

xxx xxx xxx HELD:

Petitioners devoted so much space in their answer/comment YES. Atty. Javier was suspended from the practice of law for 1
vainly trying to prove that Profs. Maguigad, Mendoza, Espiritu, month because of such offensive statements. A lawyer's
Ramirez, and Javier committed the crime of falsification of language must be dignified and choice of language is
public document reasoning out that they made "untruthful important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his
statements in the narration of facts" in the basic petition. client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior
intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper. Also, Rule 8.01. A
Respondent Torres is a member of the Philippine Bar. But what lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use language which
law books is he reading? is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper." instructs that
respondent's arguments in his pleadings should be gracious to
He should know or ought to know that the allegations in both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as
petitioners' pleading are absolutely privileged because the said may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another.
allegations or statements are relevant to the issues.
It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for
The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of
Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating the Code judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions
of Professional Responsibility for using inappropriate and and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are
offensive remarks in his pleadings. pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or
malicious they may be.
The pertinent portions of the Investigating Commissioner's
Report and Recommendation read: The requirements of materiality and relevancy are imposed so
that the protection given to individuals in the interest of an
Respondent admits that he was angry when he wrote the efficient administration of justice may not be abused as a cloak
Manifestation . . . and alleges that Complainant implicated his from beneath which private malice may be gratified. If the
wife in a burglary. Moreover, Respondent alleges that pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute and
Complainant has been "engaged in intimidating and harassing" alleges an irrelevant matter which is libelous, he loses his
his wife. privilege.

It appears that herein Complainant and herein Respondent's A matter, however, to which the privilege does not extend must
wife have had a series of charges and counter-charges filed be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the
against each other. Both parties being protagonists in the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy
intramurals within the University of the East Faculty or impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in
Association (UEFA). Herein Complainant is the President of every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It
the UEFA whereas Respondent's wife was the former must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent
President of UEFA. to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial. 33
xxx xxx xxx
1) The first cause of action of complainants is based on
Clearly, [r]espondent's primordial reason for the offensive respondent's allegation in his "Motion to Expedite" that a
remark stated in his pleadings was his emotional reaction in burglary of the UEFA office took place, and his imputation to
view of the fact that herein Complainant was in a legal dispute complainants of a plausible motive for carrying out the burglary
with his wife. This excuse cannot be sustained. Indeed, the — the concealment and destruction of vital documents relating
remarks quoted above are offensive and inappropriate. That to the audit. The imputation may be false but it could indeed
the Respondent is representing his wife is not at all an excuse. possibly prompt the BLR to speed up the resolution of the audit
case. In that light, this Court finds that the first cause of action
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended may not lie.
that respondent be reprimanded.
2) This Court does not countenance Atty. Torres' incorporating
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the in his Answer in the attorney's fees case statements such as
Philippines (IBP), by Resolution adopted and approved the "the assembly . . . was apparently irked by Mrs. Eleonor Javier
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating when she was booed while talking on the floor like a confused
Commissioner. The Report of the IBP faulting respondent is gabble (sic)." But neither does it countenance respondent's
well taken but not its recommendation to reprimand him. retaliating statements like "what kind of lawyer is Atty. Torres?,"
"he lies through his teeth," "if he has any common sense at all
ISSUE: he should shut up," and "Atty. Torres forgets the sad chapter of
 |4

his life as a practitioner when he lost out to Prof. Javier in the PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID
petition for audit which he filed to gain pogi points." Nor HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
respondent's emphasis that Atty. Torres is of the habit of
hurling baseless accusations against his wife by stating that Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use
the dismissal of the cases against his wife, of which Atty. Torres language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
was the complainant, "indubitably indicate Atty. Torres' pattern
of mental dishonesty." instructs that respondent's arguments in his pleadings should
be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of
Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatever may be the such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman
ill-feeling existing between clients should not be allowed to to another. The language vehicle does not run short of
influence counsel in their conduct toward each other or toward expressions which are emphatic but respectful, convincing but
suitors in the case. not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

In the attorney's fees case, Atty. Torres was acting as counsel 3) As to the reference by respondent to the unfortunate and
for himself as respondent and complainant was acting as contemptible practice of notaries public — basis of the last
counsel for his wife as complainant. Although it is cause of action, while it may detract from the dignity that
understandable, if not justifiable, that in the defense of one's should characterize the legal profession and the solemnity of a
clients — especially of one's wife or of one's self, the zeal in so notarial document, respondent, who justifies the same as
doing may be carried out to the point of undue skepticism and legitimate defense of his client who was being accused by Atty.
doubts as to the motives of opposing counsel, the spectacle Torres of forgery, may, given the relevance of the statement to
presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering the subject matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of the
and recrimination is far from edifying, and detract from the doubt.
dignity of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, for employing offensive and improper language
Moreover, in arguing against the dismissal of the attorney's in his pleadings, respondent Atty. Jose C. Javier is hereby
fees case on the basis of the alleged forgery of the notary SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) Month,
public's signature, respondent did not only endeavor to point effective upon receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY
out that Atty. Torres erred in advancing such an argument, but WARNED that any future infraction of a similar nature shall be
personally attacked Atty. Torres' mental fitness by stating that dealt with more severely.
"the undersigned thinks that even a dim-witted first-year law
student would not oblige with such a very serious charge," and LIKONG v. LIM A.C. No. 3149, [August 17, 1994]
"[r]espondent Torres is a member of the bar [b]ut what law
books is he reading." Summary: Bale may utang si Likong sa client ni Atty. tapos
pambayad niya pension niya (provide SPA to withdraw) ngayon
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's nirevoke ni Likong edi nagkagulo na shet. Injunction injunction
language must be dignified and choice of language is sila sa court dinefend si Likong two lawyers (wow walang
important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of his pambayad utang pero dalawa abogado wow rich hahaha char)
client's rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior tapos nagreach nalang ng compromise ngayon etong si Atty.
intellect — is enjoined to rein up his temper. wa nalang pag inform kela atty. ni Likong kesyo tinake care na
daw niya (wow sana ako din itake care ni crush CHAROT
As reflected above, the inclusion of the derogatory statements HAHAHA) NGAYON, OMG juicy part to, Nag increase utang ni
by respondent was actuated by his giving vent to his ill-feelings ate gurl naging 150k tapos may interest pa na 40% per annum
towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the mantle of absolute omg super unconscionable nung interest. Sabi ni Court,
immunity does not extend. Personal colloquies between conduct unbecoming daw yun of the legal profession (Canon 9
counsel which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling of the Code of Professional Ethics, Rule 1.01, Rule 8.02 and
should be carefully avoided. Rule 15.03 ng CPR) so suspended si Atty. Lim.

If indeed Atty. Torres filed criminal complaints for falsification of Facts:

public documents against respondent's clients as a scheme to
harass them, they are not without adequate recourse in law, for Sometime in September 1984, complainant obtained a loan of
if they plead for a righteous cause, the course of justice will P92,100.00 from a certain Geesnell L. Yap. Complainant
surely tilt in their favor, the courts being ever vigilant in the executed a promissory note in favor of Yap and a deed of
protection of a party's rights. assignment, assigning to Yap pension checks which she
regularly receives from the United States government as a
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which widow of a US pensioner. The aforementioned deed of
provides: assignment states that the same shall be irrevocable until the
loan is fully paid. Complainant likewise executed a special
CANON 8 — A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH power of attorney authorizing Yap to get, demand, collect and
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS receive her pension checks from the post office at Tagbilaran
 |5

City. The above documents were apparently prepared and Complainant filed a reply denying that she had been
notarized by respondent Alexander H. Lim, Yap's counsel. abandoned by her lawyers. Complainant stated that
respondent never furnished her lawyers with copies of the
On 11 December 1984, about three (3) months after the compromise agreement and a motion to withdraw the
execution of the aforementioned special power of attorney, injunction cash bond deposited by Yap.
complainant informed the Tagbilaran City post office that she
was revoking the special power of attorney. As a consequence, Issue:
Geesnell Yap filed a complaint for injunction with damages
against complainant. Respondent Alexander H. Lim appeared WON respondent committed malpractice and grave
as counsel for Yap while Attys. Roland B. Inting and Erico B. misconduct
Aumentado appeared for complainant (as defendant).
Held:
On 2 August 1985, complainant and Yap entered into a
compromise agreement again without the participation of the Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct is unbecoming a member
former's counsel. In the compromise agreement, it was stated of the legal profession.
that complainant Cerina B. Likong admitted an obligation to
Yap of P150,000.00. It was likewise stated therein that Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics states:
complainant and Yap agreed that the amount would be paid in
monthly installments over a period of 54 months at an interest 9. Negotiations with opposite party.
of 40% per annum discounted every six (6) months. The
compromise agreement was approved by the trial court on 15 A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject
August 1985. of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less
should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter
On 24 November 1987, Cerina B. Likong filed the present with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent
complaint for disbarment, based on the following allegations: upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may
tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he
In all these motions, complainant was prevented from seeking should not undertake to advise him as to the law.
assistance, advise and signature of any of her two (2) lawyers;
no copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 1.01 — A
complainant herself despite the latter's pleas to be furnished lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
copies of the same; deceitful conduct. Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
Complainant was even advised by respondent that it was not another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without
necessary for her to consult her lawyers under the pretense fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. Rule
would only be incurring enormous expense if she consulted a 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
had nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to disclosure of the facts.
sign; (e) complainant need not come to court afterwards to
save her time; and in any event respondent already took care The violation of the aforementioned rules of professional
of everything; conduct by respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim, warrants the
imposition upon him of the proper sanction from this Court.
Complainant had been prevented from exhibiting fully her case Such acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct
by means of fraud, deception and some other form of cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode
mendacity practiced on her by respondent; Finally, respondent confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise
fraudulently or without authority assumed to represent prevent justice from being attained.
complainant and connived in her defeat;
In the compromise agreement prepared by respondent, dated
Respondent filed his Answer stating that counsel for 2 August 1985, complainant's debt to Yap was increased to
complainant, P150,000.00 (from 92,100.00) after the lapse of only ten (10)
months. This translates to an interest in excess of seventy-five
Atty. Roland B. Inting had abandoned his client. Atty. Lim percent (75%) per annum. In addition, the compromise
further stated that the other counsel, Atty. Enrico Aumentado, agreement provides that the P150,000.00 debt would be
did not actively participate in the case and it was upon the payable in fifty-four (54) monthly installments at an interest of
request of complainant and another debtor of Yap, Crispina forty percent (40%) per annum. No great amount of
Acuna, that he (respondent) made the compromise agreement. mathematical prowess is required to see that the terms of the
Respondent states that he first instructed complainant to notify compromise agreement are grossly prejudicial to complainant.
her lawyers but was informed that her lawyer had abandoned
her since she could not pay his attorney's fees.
 |6

With respect to respondent's failure to notify complainant's Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Via, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C.
counsel of the compromise agreement, it is of record that Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M.
complainant was represented by two (2) lawyers, Attys. Inting Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn
and Aumentado. Complainant states that respondent G. Ursua, Raul V. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva, and Dina D.
prevented her from informing her lawyers by giving her the Lucenario, members of the faculty of the University of the
reasons enumerated in the complaint and earlier quoted in this Philippines College of Law published a statement on the
decision. allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the
Courts decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Essentially,
There is no showing that respondent even tried to inform the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty.
opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice
there any showing that respondent informed the trial court of Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism
the alleged abandonment of the complainant by her counsel. in his work.

Instead, even assuming that complainant was really Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the
abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against
take advantage of the situation, and the result was the Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an
execution of the compromise agreement which, as previously established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed
discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how
prejudicial to complainant. he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet
arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Alexander H. Lim is hereby articles supposedly plagiarized.
imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law
for a period of ONE (1) YEAR, effective immediately upon his The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by
receipt of this decision. imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said
case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well
as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of
ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
the Court for even the most basic values of decency and
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE respect.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE
OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit
the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s
THE SUPREME COURT, A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC
honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for
its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort women’s
Facts:
claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would
fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that
Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty.
would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their
Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against Justice
obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the
Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya
first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010. In
they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as
said case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of
Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers of the
justice.
executive department[2] to espouse their claims for reparation
and demand apology from the Japanese government for the
Issue:
abuses committed against them by the Japanese soldiers
during World War II. Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the
Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute
comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is
violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05
presently the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On August 9, 2010, (37) Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan

Held:
M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona,
Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador
Members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines
Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay,
College of Law, are directed to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10)
Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera,
days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution, why they should
Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A.
not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of
Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J.
Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code
Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig,
of Professional Responsibility.
Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L.
 |7

Further, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen is directed to SHOW ANTERO J. POBRE VS. SEN. MIRIAM
CAUSE, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution, DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, A.C. NO. 7399
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for violation of
Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting,
FACTS: The Judicial Bar Council (JBC) sent public invitations
through his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency
for nominations to the soon-to-be-vacated position of Chief
of G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya v. Executive Secretary and of the
Justice. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago applied for the
investigation before the Committee on Ethics and Ethical
position. However, the JBC then informed the applicants that
Standards, for the consideration of the Court En Banc, a
only incumbent justices for the Supreme Court could qualify for
dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the
the position. For not being qualified, Sen. Miriam Santiago
purported statement, entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement
delivered this speech on the senate floor.
by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of
Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am
the Supreme Court.
homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded.
And I am only not that, I feel like throwing up to be living my
Dissenting Opinion: middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit
on the face of the Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his
(1) Serreno, J. cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
position (of Chief Justice) if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I
This Court, as complaining party, must state plainly how its would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme
ability to view the motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya Court of idiots. x x x
decision can be affected in any way by the UP Law Faculty’s
statement. It must also state plainly how its ability to enforce its To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect
future orders would be eroded by the release of the UP Law on the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio
Faculty Statement. The milieu in which the Vinuya decision Panganiban and the other members of the Court and
was received by the public is well-known. It is not as if any constituted direct contempt of the court. Accordingly, Pobre
outrage at the Vinuya decision was caused by the UP Law asks the disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions
Faculty Statement alone. It is also incredible how the Court can be taken against the lady senator.
claim that its honesty, integrity and competence could be
eroded by an extraneous act of any person other than itself. In her comment, Senator Santiago did not deny making the
Either one is honest, has integrity, or is competent – or he is statements. However, she explained that those statements
not. No one can undermine those qualities other than the one were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
in whom they inhere. immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge
of her duty as member of Congress. The purpose of her
Even more important to keep in mind is the apparently speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open
redemptive intent of the UP Law Faculty when it issued its controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future
statement. The statement is headlined by the phrase remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose
“Restoring Integrity.” In the second paragraph, the Faculty what she believed "to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar
says: “Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that Council (JBC)," which, after sending out public invitations for
surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and nomination to the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice,
obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction, as this would only would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices
further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system.” In the of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt
next paragraph, it says: “The Court cannot regain its credibility that the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory
and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be
conduct, whether collectively or through its members, is considered for the position of Chief Justice.
beyond reproach.” In the same paragraph, it further says: “It is
also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme ISSUE:
Court as the final arbiter of all controversies: a position that
requires competence and integrity completely above any and Won the disbarment proceedings and other disciplinary actions
all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of taken against the lady senator continue?
judicial and professional ethics.”
RULING: NO.
Carpio Morales, J.
The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on
The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which
of the judicial muscle that could hardly be characterized as provides: “A Senator or Member of the House of
judicious. This knee-jerk response from the Court stares back Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
at its own face, since this judicial act is the one that is “totally than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned
vigilance.” nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
 |8

in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” Explaining the respondent to RBAI, that the bank had subsequently
import of the underscored portion of the provision, the Court, in foreclosed on the property, and that complainant should
Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, said: Our Constitution enshrines therefore vacate the property. complainant instituted a criminal
parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege complaint for estafa against respondent. respondent denied
cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic that his agreement with complainant was a pacto de retrosale.
world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose “is to He claimed that it was an equitable mortgage. IBP’s
enable and encourage a representative of the public to Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent was in
discharge his public trust with firmness and success” for “it is bad faith when he dealt with complainant and executed the
indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" but later on claimed
of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of that the agreement was one of equitable mortgage.
every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that Respondent was also guilty of deceit or fraud. Considering
liberty may occasion offense.” respondent’s "commission of unlawful acts, especially crimes
involving moral turpitude, actsof dishonesty, grossly immoral
This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the conduct and deceit," the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
and promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court lost sight Recommendation with modification as follows: respondent is(1)
of the importance of the legislative and oversight functions of suspended from the practice of law for two years, with warning
the Congress that enable this representative body to look that a similar misdeed in the future shall be dealt with more
diligently into every affair of government, investigate and severity, and (2) ordered to return the sum of ₱15,000.00
denounce anomalies, and talk about how the country and its received in consideration of the pacto de retrosale, with legal
citizens are being served. Courts do not interfere with the interest.
legislature or its members in the manner they perform their
functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any ISSUE:
claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of
the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not WON The IBP was correct in holding the respondent guilty of
destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly deceit, fraud, and acts of dishonesty.
and the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or
correct such abuses committed in the name of parliamentary HELD:
immunity.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of
For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the Governors to suspend respondent from the practice of law for
dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action two years. The Investigating Commissioner correctly found,
is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable and the IBP Board of Governors rightly agreed, that
criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of respondent caused the ambiguity or vagueness in the "Deed of
Court. It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word on Sale with Right to Repurchase" as he was the one who
the matter. prepared or drafted the said instrument. Respondent could
have simply denominated the instrument as a deed of
FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA VS. ATTY. ARTURO mortgage and referred to himself and complainant as
B. ASTORGA, A.C. NO. 4697/ A.C. NO. 4728 "mortgagor" and "mortgagee," respectively, rather than as
"vendor a retro" and "vendee a retro." Respondent, as owner
of the property, had the right to mortgage it to complainant but,
FACTS:
as a lawyer, he should have seen to it that his agreement with
complainant is embodied in an instrument that clearly
Complainant Florencio A. Saladaga and respondent Atty.
expresses the intent of the contracting parties. A lawyer who
Arturo B. Astorga entered into a "Deed of Sale with Right to
drafts a contract must see to it that the agreement faithfully and
Repurchase" where respondent sold (with rightof repurchase)
clearly reflects the intention of the contracting parties
to complainant a parcel of coconut land located at Barangay
Bunga, Baybay, Leyte. Respondent represented that he has
"the perfect right to dispose as owner in fee simple" the subject SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ VS.
property and that the said property is "free from all liens and ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, A.C. NO. 7618
encumbrances."3 The deed also provided that respondent, as
vendor a retro, had two years within which to repurchase the FACTS:
property, and if not repurchased within the said period, "the
parties shall renew [the] instrument/agreement." Respondent Complainants alleged that sometime in June 2006, and while
failed to exercise his right of repurchase within the period living abroad, they secured the services of respondent as
provided in the deed, and no renewal of the contract was made counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a minor
even after complainant sent respondent a final demand. child, Ethan Benedict Victore. In consideration therefor,
Complainant remained in peaceful possession of the property complainants, through a representative, paid respondent the
until he received letters from the Rural Bank of Albuera (Leyte), aggregate amount of P75,000.00, which was duly received by
Inc. (RBAI) informing him that the property was mortgaged by the latter. A few months later, or on October 6, 2006, they
 |9

purposely came back to the Philippines for a two (2)-week stay Canon 1 of the CPR, which provide: Rule 1.01 — A lawyer
but no petition was filed during their stay. Sometime in May shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
2007, complainants, through Jonathan's employer, received conduct. Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard
respondent's letter dated March 6, 2007, requesting that when she committed the afore-described acts of deception
complainants be allowed to come home to the Philippines to against complainants. Such acts are not only unacceptable,
appear and testify in court for the adoption case she disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they
purportedly filed on behalf of complainants before the Regional reveal basic moral flaws that make him unfit to practice law. To
Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 30 (RTC), aggravate further respondent's administrative liability, the Court
docketed as Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890. Thus, complainants notes that it repeatedly required her to comment on
returned to the Philippines in June 2007, only to find out that: complainants' petition, but respondent ignored such
( a ) Spl. Proc. Case No. 2890 referred to a petition for the commands. contravenes Canon 11 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12
declaration of the presumptive death of another person filed by of the CPR, all of which read:
another lawyer; and ( b ) respondent had yet to file a petition
for adoption on their behalf. Utterly dismayed, complainants CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
withdrew all their documents from respondent's custody and due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
hired another lawyer to handle the filing of the adoption case. similar conduct by others. CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert
Moreover, complainants demanded the return of the amount of every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
P75,000.00 given as legal fees. However, respondent refused efficient administration of justice. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall
to return such money, retorting that as a standard operating not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment
procedure, she does not return "acceptance fees." In view of or misuse court processes.
the foregoing, complainants filed the instant administrative
case against respondent before this Court. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sinamar E. Limos is found
GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, Rule
IBP REPORT : The IBP Investigating Commissioner found 12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and
respondent guilty of violating CPR, as she neglected the legal Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
matter entrusted to her by complainants Responsibility. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, effective
ISSUE: upon the finality of this Decision, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively severely. Furthermore, respondent is ORDERED to return to
liable for violating the CPR. complainants-spouses Jonathan and Ester Lopez the legal
fees she received from the latter in the amount of P75,000.00,
HELD: with legal interest, within ninety (90) days from the finality of
this Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
Yes, she should be held administratively liable for violating the warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
CPR. As correctly pointed out by the IBP Investigating
Commissioner, respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation SUZETTE DEL MUNDO VS. ATTY. ARNEL C.
of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit: Rule 18.03 – A CAPISTRANO, A.C. NO. 6903
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan
Under the foregoing provisions, once a lawyer takes up the
(Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to
cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with
handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective
competence, and to attend to such client's cause with
marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the
diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or
same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by
for free. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter
and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an
entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable
acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of
negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as
PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per
in this case. In this relation, respondent also violated Rules
pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when she failed to
prepare Php 76,000.00 for additonal expenses.
return the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees that
complainants paid her, viz .: Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall
In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty.
account for all money or property collected or received for or
Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00, for acceptance
from the client.
fee and filing fees.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from
client when due or upon demand. Even worse, respondent
Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the
misrepresented to complainants that she had already
latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed
commenced an adoption proceeding on behalf of the latter.
before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting
These deceitful acts of respondent clearly violate Rule 1.01,
notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she could
 | 10

hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her case from the CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
of Tuparan had been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
yet been filed for her.
RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property
Hence, Suzette called for a conference, which was set on July collected or received for or from the client.
28, 2005, where she demanded the refund of the total amount
of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return RULE 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparans case, to which him.
she agreed. However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the
amount of PhP5,000.00 and thereafter, refused to xxx
communicate with her, prompting the institution of this
administrative complaint. CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
In his Comment/Answer dated November 14, 2005, Atty.
Capistrano acknowledged receipt of the amount of xxx
PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and his undertaking to return the
agreed sum of PhP63,000.00. He also admitted responsibility RULE 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
for his failure to file Suzettes petition and cited as justification to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal him liable.
Officer of Manila and lack of available funds to immediately
refund the money received. RULE 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
The Action and Recommendation of the IBP to the clients request for information.

The IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Indeed, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants
Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients interest by his failure that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters
to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes
promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
honesty, probity and good demeanor. Hence, he was held profession, the courts and society. His workload does not
guilty of violating Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the justify neglect in handling ones case because it is settled that a
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently
penalty of suspension for two years from the practice of law. handle.

On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his
and approved the report and recommendation of client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such
Commissioner Quisumbing through Resolution No. XVIII-2007- funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his
9810 with modification ordering the return of the sum of own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such
PhP140,000.00 attorneys fees to Suzette. as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be
returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise
However, upon Atty. Capistranos timely motion for to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of
reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors passed the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds
Resolution No. XIX-2011-26311 on May 14, 2011 reducing the entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional
penalty of suspension from two years to one year. ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

Issue: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having

clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
Professional Responsibility. year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED
Ruling: to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of
PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of such payment.
the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD but takes
exception to the amount of PhP140,000.00 recommended to SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO VS.
be returned to Suzette.
ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR, A.C. NO. 8494
 | 11

The complainants averred that a private survey team had situation, I called my wife and children and told them about the
conducted a survey of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351 on October 10- problem. My daughter whose share was involved reacted badly
11, 2008 pursuant to the order of the Regional Trial Court, and she was hurt because she will then be deprived of her
Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in connection with the place to live in, in the future. We continued our discussion and
reconstitution of the lost certificate of title of said lot by the we decided to see Atty. Bangot to have the MOA be revoked
owners; that after conducting the perimeter survey, the survey because we felt that we were deceived, Atty. Bangot took
team had tried to enter the premises owned by them but they advantage of our old age, thus breaking the trust and
had prevented the team from doing so because their premises confidence the client[']s and lawyer should uphold at all times
had already been segregated by virtue of the issuance of in the exercise of one's profession.
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3387; that their land covered
by OCT No. P-3387 had already been subdivided into nine As a gesture of acknowledging his efforts, we offered to pay
lots; that the survey team had then desisted from proceeding him in cash, fair enough for the services he had rendered to
with their survey of their land but had nonetheless informed us. However, he refused to revoke the MOA because
them that they would return another time for the survey; and accordingly, he would consult his wife which finally did not
that this had forced them to consult a lawyer on the legal materialize because his wife was not amenable which in effect
remedies to prevent the intrusion on their property. showed that they have vested interest on the property and they
are bent on taking the property at any cause. He even
The complainants further averred that they had then consulted challenged us to file an appropriate case in court against him
with the respondent, briefing him on their concern, and rather than agree with our pleading for payment of cash.
delivering to him the documents pertinent to their land; that Likewise, he refused our offer to pay his services in cash
after scrutinizing the documents, he had told them that he alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and
would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify claimed that our possession would not be disturbed and that
the order for the reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad. he will be filing a case for Certiorari as promised
237 Lot No. 1351; that he had then insinuated that one of their
lots would be his attorney's fees; and that they had not initially To our surprise though, we came to know that the
agreed to the insinuation because the lots had already been Manifestation filed by Atty. Bangot is not a preparatory pleading
allocated to each of their seven children, but they had for certiorari. No way could it even stop the intrusion into our
ultimately consented to giving him only a portion of Lot No. property. Basically, we were deceived by Atty. Bangot into
37926-H with an area of 250 square meters believing that the Manifestation he filed would stop any legal
disturbance on our property and the same is preparatory for
The complainants recalled that on October 17, 2008 the certiorari.
respondent requested them to proceed to his law office. What
thereafter transpired and that led to the signing of the MOA Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
were set forth in their complaint, as
follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary In due course, IBP Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero
submitted his Report and Recommendation9 finding the
On October 17, 2008, my wife received a phone call from the complaint against the respondent meritorious, and
office of Atty. Bangot directing us to go to his office to sign recommending that the respondent be suspended from the
documents they have prepared. The phone call was relayed to practice of law for one year for his unfair and injudicious
me by my wife so we immediately proceeded to his office treatment of the complainants as his clients. In Resolution No.
arriving thereat at exactly 4:00 PM. The daughter of Atty. XX-2013-71,10 the IBP Board of Governors increased the
Bangot handed to us two sets of documents for our signatures. duration of the respondent's recommended penalty to
Because of full trust to Atty. Bangot, we did not bother reading suspension from the practice of law for two years
the contents of the documents. Per instruction, we brought the
papers to their friend lawyer for notarization and after the Issue:
notarization returned to the office where we were given our
personal file, without reading every detail of the documents. Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a
member of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants?
Upon arriving at our residence, I read the contents of the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Said MOA was not signed Held:
by Atty. Bangot and did not bear the signature of witnesses. I
was surprised to know that the terms of the (MOA) did not We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his
reflect the true intentions being contemplated in our previous Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an attorney because
discussions. Contrary to what I have told him, a different area he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his
which is 37925-G under TCT No. 121708 was written. I already clients.
told him that my other lots including the lot written in the MOA
could no longer be. disposed of because these lots were To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the
already committed to each of my children. The lot area was following factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of
also increased from 250 sq. m. to 300 sq. m. Because of this Professional Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit: (a)
 | 12

the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or Although he did claim that the filing of the Manifestation for
required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; Information had prevented any intrusion on their property,
(c) the importance of the subject matter; (d) the skill thereby fulfilling his end of the contract,13 the worth of such
demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a minimal effort was exaggerated and disproportionate when
result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary taken in the context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925-
charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP G with 300 square meters in area. The two-paged
chapter to which he belongs; (g) the amount involved in the Manifestation for Information was not even the procedural
controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover, he
service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) did not actually file the petition for certiorari as he had
the character of the employment, whether occasional or promised. And, lastly, he did nothing more after filing the
established; and j) the professional standing of the lawyer. Manifestation for Information. He certainly transgressed the
Lawyer's Oath by receiving property of a substantial value from
The question to ask is, "Was the MOA fair to the parties and the complainants after having made them believe that he could
entered into by them in goodfaith?" ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took
advantage of them who had reposed their full trust and
The undersigned resolves in the negative. To begin with, the confidence in his ability to perform the task by virtue of his
conduct of Respondent had evinced an instinctive interest in being a lawyer. He was definitely bent on obtaining Lot No.
the property of Complainants. He had the MOA executed at the 37925-G than in protecting the complainants' interest in their
same time he filed the Manifestation for Information before the property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give
court that was hearing LRC Case No. 98-010. Not only that, cash for his attorney's fees instead of the land. We sadly note
Respondent's proposal to have a MOA executed between him in this connection that his changing the property ostensibly
and the Complainant was meant to impress that his supposed agreed upon with the bigger lot as payment for his legal
attorney's fees would be paid on contingent basis, however, a services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the relationship.
perusal of the MOA indicates that the payment of Respondents' He maintained the deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA
fee by way of a real property is being made immediately against them through the action for specific performance.
effective upon execution of the agreement.
As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee
As to the agreement of the Complainant and the Respondent, arrangement. Indeed, a contingent fee arrangement is a
the undersigned gives full faith to the allegation of Complainant contract in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed percentage
that the payment of Respondent's attorney's fees by way of a of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend
real property would come from TCT No. 121709 and not T- upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed
121708. Complainants explained that the latter lot had already right.15 The amount of the contingent fee agreed upon by the
been committed to their seven (7) children especially because parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for
this lot is situated in a prime location thus they could not have his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much
picked the same over Lot No. 121709. The Respondent knew higher compensation is allowed as contingent fee in
straightforwardly that lot 121708 was a better lot yet consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing should
Respondent gave a different account of their agreement and the suit fail. Such arrangement is generally recognized as valid
took advantage of the frailty and advance ages (sic) of his and binding in this jurisdiction but its terms must be
clients. reasonable.16 Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
states that "a contract for a contingent fee, when sanctioned by
But, the most shocking of all, is the apparent inequity or law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the
disproportion between the amount of attorney's fees case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation,
(measured from the value of the property taken by but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as
Respondent) and the effort or service already performed or still to its reasonableness." A contract of this nature is permitted
to be performed by him. The Complainants were not made because it redounds to the benefit of the poor client and the
parties to the LRC case or any other case and Respondent lawyer especially in cases where the client has a meritorious
filed a mere two-paged Manifestation for Information in court cause of action but has no means with which to pay for the
which he did almost effortlessly. It is not clear how the court legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a
had reacted to the manifestation but Respondent did not follow contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of
it up with [any] other action. Despite the same, Respondent the litigation. Oftentimes, such arrangement is the only means
stuck to his tale that the Complainants had signed [the] MOA by which the poor and helpless can seek redress for injuries
and despite his minimal representation of the Complainants in sustained and have their rights vindicated.17chanrobleslaw
court, he held on to his idea that he had taken from his clients
valid title to a million [pesos] worth of real estate in payment of Considering that a contingent fee arrangement is susceptible
his fees. to abuse, the courts should closely scrutinize it to protect the
client from unjust charges.
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged
Manifestation for Information constituted the respondent's WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent
rendition of professional services for the complainants. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR. guilty of violation of the
 | 13

Lawyer's Oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility; especially because he had invested considerable time, talent
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for five (5) years and energy in the processing of complainants’ tourist visa
effective upon notice of this decision, with warning that sterner applications with the U.S. Embassy.
sanctions will be meted on him for a similar offense; and
DECLARES that he is not entitled to recover any attorney's In his Commissioner’s Report,4 Investigating Commissioner
fees from the complainants. Jose I. De la Rama, Jr. (Investigating Commissioner), noted
that Atty. Estebal received a total of ₱345,000.00 from
WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR VS. ATTY. complainants; that notwithstanding receipt thereof, Atty.
Estebal did not make any attempt to process or submit their
ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, A.C. NO. 10443
visa applications; that even if the amount collected is
considered as attorney’s fees, the same is excessive; and that
FACTS:
even if Atty. Estebal is entitled to attorney’s fees, the amount of
₱15,000.00 would be considered appropriate under the
In the early part of 2006, complainants engaged the services of
circumstances. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner
Atty. Estebal to assist each of them in securing tourist visas to
recommended that Atty. Estebal be suspended from the
the United States (U.S.). Toward this end, on January 24,
practice of law for six (6) months for violating Canons 15, 16
2006, Campos and Atty. Estebal entered into a Service
and 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP
Contract2 stipulating an acceptance/service fee of
Board of Governors issued Resolution affirming with
₱200,000.00 exclusive of out-of-pocket expenses such as
modification the Investigating Commissioner’s
tickets, filing fees, and application fees; and that in case no
recommendation and suspend Atty. Estebal from the practice
visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has been
of law for a period of six (6) months.
actually paid less 7% thereof Campos paid Atty. Estebal the
sum of ₱150,000.00. For their part, Batac an.d Carpio gave
ISSUE:
Atty. Estebal the amounts of ₱75,000.00 and ₱120,000.00,
respectively. Unlike Campos, their agreement with Atty. Estebal
Is Atty. Estebal guilty of professional misconduct for violating
was not put in writ Complainants claimed that despite receipt of
the pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional
their monies, Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure for them
Responsibility?
the U.S. tourist visas that he promised. Thus, they demanded
for the return of their monies. Atty. Estebal, however, failed to
HELD:
return the amount despite repeated demands. Hence, they
filed this Complaint praying that Atty. Estebal be suspended or
YES. Respondent clearly violated Canons 15, 16, 16.01 and
disbarred from the practice of law, and that he be directed to
20, 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
return their monies.

Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he was not

Atty. Estebal averred: (1) that he is a practicing lawyer
candid enough to tell the complainants their chance[s] of
specializing in immigration, international law and illegal arrest
getting [a] US visa. Instead, the respondent made the
cases, including the procurement of tourist visas; (2) that like
complainants believe that they will have a good chance of
any other professional, he is paid not only for the results he
getting the US visa if they will be joined with other groups. It
delivered, but also for the time, talent, industry and other items
turned out to be false. Complainants waited for so long before
of professional services he rendered, irrespective of the
the respondent could find other members of the group. In the
result/s thereof; (3) that his professional services were
end, nothing happened.
engaged by complainants for the purpose of enabling them to
secure or obtain tourist visas from the U.S. Embassy in Manila;
He also violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 because he did not
(4) that after interviewing complainants individually, he
account [for] the money he received from the
suggested that complainants file a collective application,
complainants.1âwphi1 It is not clear to the complainants how
meaning that the complainants, along with other applicants for
much is the amount due to the respondent.
a U.S. tourist visa, should constitute themselves into a tour
group, so that their overall chances of obtaining visas for all
Lastly, it appears that the attorney’s fees that he collected from
members of the group would be enhanced; (5) that he made
the complainants are excessive and unreasonable.
this suggestion because he believed that the more applicants
Considering the degree of work and number of hours spent,
join the group, the lesser the fees that would be charged; (6)
the amount he collected from the complainants is not
that it was agreed that a group of 10 applicants would
commensurate to the degree of services rendered. Obviously,
comprise a tour group; (7) that although some applicants paid
respondent took advantage of the weakness of the
the proper fees and submitted the required documents, others
complainants in their desire to go the United States.
neither paid the proper fees nor submitted the necessary
documents; (8) and that because of this lack of cohesive
While lawyers are entitled to the payment of attorney’s fees,
action, the plan did not push through at all.
the same should be reasonable under the circumstances. Even
if we base the attorney’s fees of the respondent on quantum
Atty. Estebal posited that complainants’ demand for the return
meruit, still, the amount collected by the respondent is still
or refund of their money has no factual or legal basis at all,
 | 14

excessive. Respondent should return the money to the Summary: So etong case na to, about sa lupa. Nirepresent ni
complainant. The attorney’s fees is excessive in a sense that in counsel si Vda (Biyuda) de Caina, ngayon yung case. Di siya
the Service the scope of work of Atty. Estebel was only to nabayaran. So ngayon nagfile siya ng motion sa court na
conduct Initial interview of client and collation of all information iannotate yung claim/lien niya at the back of the Torrens Title,
relevant to the case; assessment of case; evaluation of and then, nanalo siya. File ngayon si client ng MR kasi di daw
documents; formulation of the theory of the case; filing up of siya nainform (same ate, same) na may motion na ganun
forms, DS-156 & 157; general briefing, specific briefing ngayon, denied si ate gurl. Edi file for certiorari na. Sbi ni court,
including mock interview. If this is only the scope of work done may 2 types daw na lien, retaining lien tsaka charging lien.
by the respondent, the amount of P200,000.00 that he Yung retaining, tinatago mo files nila kasi nga gago ka
received from complainant William Campos is really excessive. kelangan mo pera HAHAHA JOKE LANG MAHAL MAG ARAL
KAYA KELANGAN NG PERA HAHAHA. Yung charging naman
There is hardly any doubt that Atty. Estebal’s act of receiving nakabase yun dun sa judgment nung case na hinandle ganun.
such substantial sums from complainants without in the least Yung mga “attorneys fees” shit sa wherefore something
intending to honor his word to secure the U.S. tourist visas that hahahahaha. So ayun, grave abuse of discretion ginawa ni
he promised to get for them constitutes a breach of his court nung inallow iannotate sa likod ni title. So pag atty. na
professional responsibility. It was both a refusal and a failure to tayo, isipin natin na noble profession to na we don’t need
give complainants their due; it was also both a refusal and a money to buy us happiness hahahaha char.
failure to observe honesty and good faith in his dealings with
them. Indeed, Atty. Estebal acted unjustly; he denied Facts:
complainants their due; and he displayed unmitigated
dishonesty and bad faith in his professional and personal Petitioners are the widow and children of the late Valeriana
relations with complainants. Caiña who was the owner of a parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21702. A portion of this property
Respondent Atty. Alexander C. Estebal is hereby found guilty was transferred to one Gavina Cierte de Andal and as a result
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and is said title was cancelled and a new one issued in their names
hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one bearing No. 51585.
(1) year.
Respondent Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. was the attorney of one of
(Sinama ko na just in case ipa-enumerate ni Atty. Tanyag) petitioners, Elena Peralta Vda. de Caiña, in an action for
ejectment filed before the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan,
The Supreme Court, in justifying quantum meruit, has laid Rizal, against one Ricardo Nabong, which was dismissed and
down the following requisites: appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In the latter
court, the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3875, and
Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is because of the non-appearance of defendant, the latter was
authorized declared in default and judgment was rendered in favor of
plaintiff. This judgment became final and executory for lack of
(1) when there is no express contract for payment of attorney’s appeal.
fees
On June 26, 1957, respondent Dalisay filed a motion in the
(2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney’s fees, same ejectment case for annotation of his attorney's lien on the
the fees stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51585 claiming that,
by the Court notwithstanding the services he had rendered to the widow and
her children who were presented by him in said case, they
(3) when the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely have failed to pay him his attorney's fees which he fixed at
formal defects of execution P2,020. This motion was set for hearing and thereafter the
same was granted in an order entered on July 10, 1957
(4) when the lawyer for justifiable cause was not able to finish wherein the court ordered petitioners to surrender their
the case for its conclusion duplicate copy of said certificate in order that the annotation
requested may be made.
(5) when the lawyer and the client disregard the contract for
attorney’s fees and Upon receipt of a copy of this order, petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration alleging that they were never furnished with
(6) when the client dismissed his client before the termination a copy of respondent's motion, nor notified of the date of its
of the case or the latter withdrew therefrom for valid reason hearing, for which reason they were not able to appear to
contest the same. This motion was opposed by respondent
VDA. DE CAINA VS. VICTORIANO, G.R. NO. L- Dalisay who averred that petitioners were furnished with a
copy of his motion by registered mail three days before the
12905
hearing as shown by the return card attached to his written
 | 15

opposition. And on August 27, 1957, the court denied the for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L.
motion. Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant
accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information
Issue: he obtained from her in filing the civil case.

Whether the attorney's lien of respondent Dalisay for services Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the
he had rendered in the ejectment case can be ordered preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he
annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. denied having received any confidential information. Atty.
51585. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was
instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the
Held: disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty.
Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.
An attorney's lien is of two kinds: one is called retaining lien
and the other charging lien. The retaining lien is the right of the The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
attorney to retain the funds, documents, and papers of his
client which have lawfully come into his possession until his IBP Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty.
lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and to apply Sabitsana administratively liable for representing conflicting
such funds to the satisfaction thereof. The charging lien is the interests. The IBP Commissioner opined:
right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the
payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of said In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not
judgments, which he has secured in litigation of his client handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and
(Section 33, Rule 127; Rustia vs. Abeto, 72 Phil., 133). Under thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that Zenaida
this rule, this lien, whether retaining or charging, takes legal L. Caete, respondents present client in Civil Case No. B-1060
effect only from and after, but not before, notice of said lien has did not initially learn about the sale executed by Bontes in favor
been entered in the record and served on the adverse party. of complainant thru the confidences and information divulged
by complainant to respondent in the course of the preparation
It may therefore be seen that the right of a lawyer to insure the of the said deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty to
payment of his professional fee is either to retain the funds, decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida Caete in
documents, and papers of his client which may have lawfully view of the rule prohibiting representation of conflicting
come into his possession, or to enforce it upon any judgment interests.
for the payment of money he may secure in favor of his client.
And it has been held that the retaining lien is dependent upon A lawyer may not represent conflicting interests in the absence
possession and does not attach to anything not in attorney's of the written consent of all parties concerned given after a full
hands. The lien exists only so long as the attorney's retains disclosure of the facts.
possession ends (Rustia vs. Abeto, supra).
Complainant and respondents present client, being contending
In the instant case, the lien which respondent attorney tried to claimants to the same property, the conflict of interest is
enforce for the satisfaction of his professional fee is charging in obviously present. There is said to be inconsistency of interest
the sense that his purpose is to make of record his claim in when on behalf of one client, it is the attorneys duty to contend
order that it may be considered in the execution of the for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose.
judgment that may be rendered in the case, and this he has
already done. Thus, he had already caused a statement of his The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be
claim to be entered in the record of the ejectment case and suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
that is all what the rule requires of him to do. Certainly, he
cannot go any further, such as what he led the trial court to do, IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the
that is, to have his lien annotated on the back of the title of Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner.
petitioners which is beyond the province of the court. The lien
of respondent is not of a nature which attaches to the property Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but
in litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion.
writ of execution.
Issue:
ANION VS. SABITSANA, A.C. NO. 5098
1. whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for
In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that representing conflicting interests.
she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in
the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale 2. Whether the IBP recomendation was a violation of his right
over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, to due process on the ground that the charge in the complaint
Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential information,
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her not for representation of conflicting interests.
 | 16

Ruling: above rule, as established by the following circumstances on

record:
1. Yes.
One, his legal services were initially engaged by the
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should complainant to protect her interest over a certain property. The
ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and records show that upon the legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in
prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most the complainants favor.
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered
exchange of information between them. Needless to state, a Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Caete to discuss the
client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer latters legal interest over the property subject of the Deed of
based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge that
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to Zenaida Caetes interest clashed with the complainants
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and interests.
transactions with the client.[6] Part of the lawyers duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from
Responsibility quoted below: Zenaida Caete.

Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests Four, Atty. Sabitsanas actual knowledge of the conflicting
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full interests between his two clients was demonstrated by his own
disclosure of the facts. actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf
of Zenaida Caete; second, he impleaded the complainant as
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for
applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously
clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.[7] The prepared and executed for the complainant.
prohibition also applies even if the lawyer would not be called
upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion Responsibility provides an exception to the above prohibition.
to use the confidential information acquired from one to the However, we find no reason to apply the exception due to Atty.
disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly Sabitsanas failure to comply with the requirements set forth
unrelated.[8] To be held accountable under this rule, it is under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana did not make a full disclosure of
enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom facts to the complainant and to Zenaida Caete before he
would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or accepted the new engagement with Zenaida Caete. The
conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of records likewise show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided letter to the complainant informing her of Zenaida Caetes
fidelity to both clients.[9] adverse claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale
and, urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether however did not disclose to the complainant that he was also
a violation of the above rule is present in a given case. being engaged as counsel by Zenaida Caete.[11] Moreover,
the records show that Atty. Sabitsana failed to obtain the
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue written consent of his two clients, as required by Rule 15.03,
or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers
argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer 2. No. We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP
in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. recommendation on the ground that the charge in the
complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of confidential
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the information, not for representation of conflicting interests. To
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable for the latter offense is a
of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client violation of his due process rights since he only answered the
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the designated charge.
performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the
lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsanas due process rights.
a former client any confidential information acquired through Although there was indeed a specific charge in the complaint,
their connection or previous employment. we are not unmindful that the complaint itself contained
allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule
On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.
substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsanas violation of the
 | 17

We have consistently held that the essence of due process is In view of the finality of the above decision, the camineros,
simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge against through their new counsel (who substituted for the petitioner),
oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative moved for its execution. The court then ordered the issuance
proceedings, the opportunity to explain ones side or the of a partial writ of execution directing the payment of only 45%
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling of the amount due them based on the computation of the
complained of. These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. provincial engineering office as audited by the authority
Sabitsana, as shown by the above circumstances. concerned. The court did not release the remaining 55%, thus
holding in abeyance the payment of the lawyers fees pending
All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui the determination of the final amount of such fees. However,
generis. In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court instead of complying with the court order directing partial
merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his payment, the province of Cebu directly paid the camineros the
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of full amount of their adjudicated claims.
preserving the purity of the legal profession. We likewise aim to
ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by Petitioner filed a complaint for damages anchoring his claim
purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, under article 19 of the civl code. He alleged that by directly
have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with paying the camineros the amount due them, the respondents
the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. induced the camineros to violate their written contract for
attorneys fees. He likewise claimed that they violated the
RAUL H. SESBREO VS HON. COURT OF compromise agreement approved by the Court by computing
the camineros money claims based on the provincial instead of
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 161390
the national wage rate which, consequently, yielded a lower
amount.
FACTS

While maintaining the validity of the compromise agreement,

On January 26, 1970, Mrs. Rosario Sen and other camineros
the trial court found that the petitioners money claims should
hired the petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases Nos. R-10933[5]
have been computed based on the national and not the
and R-11214, evidenced by an Agreement, the terms of which
provincial rate of wages paid the camineros. Accordingly, the
read as follows:
court declared that the petitioner was prejudiced to the extent
of the difference between these two rates. The court further
AGREEMENT
upheld the petitioners status as a quasi-party considering that
he had a registered charging lien. However, it did not give
WE, the undersigned, hereby agree to pay Atty. Raul H.
credence to the petitioners claim that the respondent public
Sesbreo, thirty (30%) percent of whatever back salaries,
officials induced the camineros to violate their contract, and
damages, etc. that we may recover in the mandamus and
thus, absolved them from liability.
other cases that we are filing or have filed against the Province
of Cebu, the Provincial Governor, etc., whether or not the said
On appeal, the CA reversed the trial courts decision and
cases will be amicably settled or decided by the courts by final
dismissed the complaint. The appellate court concluded that
judgment. We shall take care of all expenses in connection
petitioner failed to sufficiently establish his allegation that the
with the said cases.
respondents induced the camineros to violate the agreement
for attorneys fees and the compromise agreement, and that he
During the pendency of the aforesaid cases or on April 17,
suffered damage due to respondents act of directly paying the
1979, petitioner registered his charging/retaining lien based on
camineros the amounts due them.
the Agreement. The camineros obtained favorable judgment
when the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Cebu ordered
Issue
that they be reinstated to their original positions with back
salaries, together with all privileges and salary adjustments or
Whether or not the petitioner can enforce his 30% attorneys
increases. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Public Highways
fees against the respondent
and the District Engineer filed certiorari cases before this Court
where the petitioner willingly rendered further legal assistance
Ruling
and represented the camineros.

NO. Petitioners claim for attorneys fees was evidenced by an

In April 1979, the camineros, represented by the petitioner, and
agreement for attorneys fees voluntarily executed by the
the province of Cebu, through then Gov. Gullas, forged a
camineros where the latter agreed to pay the former thirty
compromised agreement. Apparently, the camineros waived
(30%) percent of whatever back salaries, damages, etc. that
their right to reinstatement embodied in the CFI decision and
they might recover in the mandamus and other cases that they
the province agreed that it immediately pay them their back
were filing or have filed. Clearly, no fixed amount was
salaries and other claims.
specifically provided for in their contract nor was a specified
rate agreed upon on how the money claims were to be
computed. The use of the word whatever shows that the basis
 | 18

for the computation would be the amount that the court would with the agreement, his claim against the respondents,
award in favor of the camineros. Considering that the parties therefore, has no leg to stand on. n the instant case, petitioners
agreed to a compromise, the payment would have to be based act in withdrawing the case against the camineros and
on the amount agreed upon by them in the compromise agreeing to settle their dispute may be considered a waiver of
agreement approved by the court. And since the compromise his right to the lien. No rule will allow a lawyer to collect from
agreement had assumed finality, this Court can no longer delve his client and then collect anew from the judgment debtor
into its substance, especially at this time when the judgment except, perhaps, on a claim for a bigger amount which, as
had already been fully satisfied. We cannot allow the petitioner earlier discussed, is baseless.
to question anew the compromise agreement on the pretext
that he suffered damage. As long as he was given the agreed Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
percentage of the amount received by the camineros, then, the merchants. Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. The
agreement is deemed complied with, and petitioner cannot returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service
claim to have suffered damage. rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which
enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental
A charging lien is an equitable right to have the fees and costs interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is
due to the lawyer for services in a suit secured to him out of subject to state regulation.
the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. It is based on
the natural equity that the plaintiff should not be allowed to Lastly, we cannot ascribe bad faith to the respondents who
appropriate the whole of a judgment in his favor without paying directly paid the camineros the amounts due them. The
thereout for the services of his attorney in obtaining such records do not show that when they did so, they induced the
judgment. camineros to violate their contract with the petitioner; nor do
the records show that they paid their obligation in order to
In this case, the existence of petitioners charging lien is cause prejudice to the petitioner. The attendant circumstances,
undisputed since it was properly registered in the records. The in fact, show that the camineros acknowledged their liability to
parties even acknowledged its existence in their compromise the petitioner and they willingly fulfilled their obligation. It would
agreement. However, a problem arose when the respondents be contrary to human nature for the petitioner to have acceded
directly paid in full the camineros money claims and did not to the withdrawal of the case against them, without receiving
withhold that portion which corresponds to petitioners fees. the agreed attorneys fees. Thus, petition is Denied.

When the judgment debt was fully satisfied, petitioner could SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND
have enforced his lien either against his clients (the camineros BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION VS. ATTY. ELMER
herein) or against the judgment debtor (the respondents
herein). The clients, upon receiving satisfaction of their claims
A. DELA ROSA, A.C. NO. 10681
without paying their lawyer, should have held the proceeds in
trust for him to the extent of the amount of his recorded lien, In their Verified Complaint, complainants alleged that from
because after the charging lien had attached, the attorney is, to 19972 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained
the extent of said lien, regarded as an equitable assignee of lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many
the judgment or funds produced by his efforts. of their cases and was consulted on various legal matters,
among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business
The judgment debtors may likewise be held responsible for towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to
their failure to withhold from the camineros the amount of materialize.
attorneys fees due the petitioner.
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from
In the instant case, the petitioner rightly commenced an action their failed business venture, respondent, called Henry to
against both his clients and the judgment debtors. However, at borrow the amount of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to
the instance of the petitioner himself, the complaint against his return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter. Henry consulted
clients was withdrawn on the ground that he had settled his his wife, Blesilda, who, believing that respondent would be
differences with them. He maintained the case against soon returning the money, agreed to lend the aforesaid sum to
respondents because, according to him, the computation of the respondent. She thereby issued three (3) EastWest Bank
camineros money claims should have been based on the checks
national and not the provincial wage rate. Thus, petitioner
insists that the respondents should be made liable for the Upon receiving the checks, respondent signed a piece of paper
difference. containing: (a) photocopies of the checks; and (b) an
acknowledgment that he received the originals of the checks
The withdrawal was premised on a settlement, which indicates and that he agreed to return the P2,500,000.00, plus monthly
that his former clients already paid their obligations. This is interest of five percent (5%), within five (5) days.7 In the
bolstered by the certification of the clerk of court that his former afternoon of March 23, 2006, the foregoing checks were
clients had deposited their passbooks to ensure payment of personally en cashed by respondent.
the agreed fees. Having been paid by his clients in accordance
 | 19

On March 28, 2006, or the day respondent promised to return On the other hand, respondent’s claim that Nault was the real
the money, he failed to pay complainants. Thus, in April 2006, debtor was found to be implausible. The Investigating
complainants began demanding payment but respondent Commissioner remarked that if it is true that respondent was
merely made repeated promises to pay soon. Blesilda sent a not the one who obtained the loan, he would have responded
demand letter to respondent, which the latter did not heed. to complainants’ demand letter; however, he did not. He also
Complainants, through their new counsel, Atty. Kathryn Jessica observed that the acknowledgment Nault allegedly signed
dela Serna, sent another demand letter to respondent. In his appeared to have been prepared by respondent himself.
Reply, the latter denied borrowing any money from the Finally, the Investigating Commissioner cited Nault’s Answer to
complainants. Instead, respondent claimed that a certain Jean the Third Party Complaint which categorically states that he
Charles Nault (Nault), one of his other clients, was the real does not even know the complainants and that it was
debtor. Complainants brought the matter to the Office of the respondent alone who obtained the loan from them.
Lupong Tagapamayapa in Barangay Balulang, Cagayan de
Oro City. The parties, however, failed to reach a settlement. Respondent’s failure to appear during the mandatory
conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CBD.
On January 11, 2010, the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
received complainants’ letter-complaint charging respondent that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return
with violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR. The rule prohibits the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.
lawyers from borrowing money from clients unless the latter’s
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by Finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the
independent advice. evidence on record and by the applicable laws and rule, the
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
In his Comment, respondent denied borrowing P2,500,000.00 Investigating Commissioner’s Report but reduced the penalty
from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor. He against the respondent to indefinite suspension from the
also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect practice of law and ordered the return of the P2,500,000.00 to
from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose. the complainants with legal interest, instead of stipulated
interest.
In their letter-reply, complainants maintained that they
extended the loan to respondent alone, as evidenced by the Respondent sought a reconsiderationmwhich was denied.
checks issued in the latter’s name. They categorically denied
knowing Nault and pointed out that it defies common sense for Issue:
them to extend an unsecured loan in the amount of
P2,500,000.00 to a person they do not even know. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively
Complainants also submitted a copy of the Answer to Third liable for violating the CPR.
Party Complaint which Nault filed as third-party defendant in a
related collection case instituted by the complainants against Ruling:
respondent. In said pleading, Nault explicitly denied knowing
complainants and alleged that it was respondent who incurred The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its
the subject loan from them. recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount of
P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants.
The IBP Report and Recommendation
Respondent’s theory that Nault is the real debtor hardly
IBP Investigating Commissioner, Jose I. de La Rama, Jr. inspires belief. While respondent submitted a document
(Investigating Commissioner), issued his Report finding purporting to be Nault’s acknowledgment of his debt to the
respondent guilty of violating: (a) Rule 16.04 of the CPR which complainants, Nault, in his Answer to Third Party Complaint,
provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his clients categorically denied knowing the complainants and incurring
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the same obligation.
the case or by independent advice; (b) Canon 7 which states
that a lawyer shall uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal Moreover, as correctly pointed out by complainants, it would be
profession and support the activities of the IBP; and (c) Canon illogical for them to extend a P2,500,000.00 loan without any
16 which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all monies collateral or security to a person they do not even know. On the
and properties of his client that may come into his possession. other hand, complainants were able to submit documents
showing respondent’s receipt of the checks and their
The Investigating Commissioner observed that the checks encashment, as well as his agreement to return the
were issued in respondent’s name and that he personally P2,500,000.00 plus interest. This is bolstered by the fact that
received and encashed them. Annex “E” of the Verified the loan transaction was entered into during the existence of a
Complaint shows that respondent acknowledged receipt of the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainants,
three (3) EastWest Bank checks and agreed to return the allowing the former to wield a greater influence over the latter
P2,500,000.00, plus a pro-rated monthly interest of five percent in view of the trust and confidence inherently imbued in such
(5%), within five (5) days. relationship.
 | 20

Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited complainants the amount of P2,500,000.00 and the legal
from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interest thereon. It is settled that in disciplinary proceedings
interests are fully protected: against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the
court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and Bar. In such cases, the Court’s only concern is the
properties of his clients that may come into his possession. determination of respondent’s administrative liability; it should
not involve his civil liability for money received from his client in
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of his professional engagement. In this case, respondent
the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend received the P2,500,000.00 as a loan from complainants and
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has not in consideration of his professional services. Hence, the
to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is IBP’s recommended return of the aforementioned sum lies
handling for the client.” beyond the ambit of this administrative case, and thus cannot
be sustained.
The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his
client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage
of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the
client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the
legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

As above-discussed, respondent borrowed money from

complainants who were his clients and whose interests, by the
lack of any security on the loan, were not fully protected.
Owing to their trust and confidence in respondent,
complainants relied solely on the former’s word.

In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated
Canon 7 of the CPR which reads:

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE

INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.

In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by

blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the trust
and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so doing,
failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Thus, he should be equally held administratively liable on this
score.

That being said, the Court turns to the proper penalty to be

imposed and the propriety of the IBP’s return directive.

The appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the

exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding
facts.

In Frias, the Court suspended the lawyer from the practice of

law for two (2) years after borrowing P900,000.00 from her
client, refusing to pay the same despite court order, and
representing conflicting interests. Considering the greater
amount involved in this case and respondent’s continuous
refusal to pay his debt, the Court deems it apt to suspend him
from the practice of law for three (3) years, instead of the IBP’s
recommendation to suspend him indefinitely.

The Court also deems it appropriate to modify the IBP’s

Resolution insofar as it orders respondent to return to