Digests Ethics 18 Onwards Digestsssss
Short Description
Canon 18...
Description
Legarda v. CA (1992) F: Legarda was defendant in a complaint for specic performance. Atty. Atty. Coronel Coronel !er co"nsel failed faile d to le an answer wit!in wi t!in t!e period and Legarda Leg arda was t!"s declared in defa"lt. #!e lower co"rt rendered a decision against Legarda. Coronel failed to pose an appeal wit!in t!e period. #!"s t!e decision $ecame nal. #!e %C s"spended Atty. Atty. Coronel Coronel for si& mont!s.
': Coronel is g"ilty of gross negligence for violating Canon 1 and r"le 1.* partic"larly. +y neglecting to le t!e answer to t!e complaint against petitioner !e set o, t!e events w!ic! res"lted in t!e deprivation of petitioner-s rig!ts over !er !o"se and lot. /t s!o"ld $e remem$ered t!at t!e moment t!e lawyer ta0es a client-s ca"se !e covenants t!at !e will e&ert e&ert all e,ort for its prosec"tion "ntil its nal concl"sion. A lawyer w!o fails to e&ercise d"e diligence or a$andons !is client-s ca"se ma0es !im "nwort!y of t!e tr"st reposed on !im $y t!e latter. L3A45A v CA
6ma!a$a di 0o na sinama mga dissenting. #alo naman sila e!
Facts:
7ew 7ew Cat! Cat!ay ay 'o"s 'o"se e /nc. /nc. (Cat (Cat!a !ay) y) and and 8icto ictori ria a Lega Legard rda a ente enterred into into a leas lease e agreement for a property in C owned $y Legarda. For some reason Legarda ref"sed to sign t!e contract. Cat!ay made a deposit and downpayment of rentals t!en led for specic performance. Legarda-s co"nsel 5ean Antonio Coronel re"ested a 1;day e&tension to le an answer w!ic! was granted. +"t 5ean Coronel failed to le an answer wit!in t!at period. Cat!ay presented evidence e& parte. Cat!ay won t!e case (4. 'L5: #!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility mandates lawyers to serve t!eir clients wit! competence and diligence. 4"le 1.2 states t!at a lawyer s!all not !andle any legal matter wit!o"t ade"ate preparation. %pecically 4"le 1.* provides t!at a lawyer s!all not neglect a legal matter entr"sted to !im and !is negligence in connection t!erewit! s!all render !im lia$le. nce lawyers agree to ta0e "p t!e ca"se of t!e client t!ey owe delity to t!e ca"se and m"st always $e mindf"l of t!e tr"st and condence reposed in t!em. A client is entitled to
t!e $enet of any and every remedy and defense a"t!oriJed $y law and is e&pected to rely on t!e lawyer to assert every s"c! remedy or defense. @!erefore !e is s"spended.
F/L/78%# LA75 /7C 8% CA FAC#%: Case was led wit! t!e 4#C for 4ecovery of >ossession of a parcel of land alleging t!at it is t!e owner t!ereof as evidenced #C# 7o %;19G $"t w!ic! $y occ"pied $y t!e defendant to !o"se some of its oKcers and w!o inspire of repeated demands $y t!em !as ref"sed to vacate t!e same. #!e defendant t!ro"g! Atty %alva Atty +a"tista Atty 4eyes led a total of si& e&tensions wit! t!e co"rt total of days $eca"se of ina$ility of co"nsel-s ina$ility to read t!e records of too m"c! wor0 or !eavy press"re of wor0 illness of t!e co"nsel or rat!er frivolo"s reason s"c! as "ne&pected wedding of one of t!e co"nsel. n t!e si&t! time t!ey led a motion t!e co"rt denied and rendered decision t!at t!ey are in defa"lt. /%%E: @7 lawyers are negligent for s"c! acts 'L5: (pls se r"le 1.* E> %L/5) #!e private respondent was given e&traordinary opport"nity to !ave its day in co"rt w!en t!e lower co"rt !ad given it a total of eig!ty;eig!t () days from service of s"mmons to le its answer to t!e complaint. #!e ina$ility of fo"r lawyers to prepare t!e answer for t!is long period of time is not ="stied. Fail"re to $ring s"it immediately constit"tes negligence of attorneys.
H87 5 H%E% 8 >7+
FAC#%: #!is appeal presents a proced"ral "estion on t!e dismissal of in appeal as perfected o"t of time. %pecically it involves applications of %ection 1* 4"le 1 of t!e 4"les of Co"rt: %ec.1* ,ect of fail"re to le notice $ond or record on appeal on appeal. M @!ere t!e notice of appeal Appeal $ond or record on appeal is not led wit!in t!e period of time !erein provided t!e appeal s!all $e dismissed.
5efendant $an0 admitted !aving led its notice of appeal notice on appeal and appeal $ond $eyond * day period $"t contended in its motion t!at t!e delay was d"e to accident mista0e andor e&c"sa$le negligence. /n s"pport wit! t!eir contention it is alleged t!at t!e registered mail was given $y t!e $an0-s postal mail cler0 "genio Iagpoc to Feliciano HimeneJ Hr registered mail cler0 of appellant-s cas!ier department. 5"e to t!e vol"me of wor0 it was delivered late on its legal department and failed to inform t!at t!e letter was two days ago. /%%E: @7 t!e appellant-s co"nsel is negligent. 'L5: #!e lower co"rt did not nd e&c"sa$le negligence wit! t!eir reason. #!e appellant-s co"nsel carelessly too0 for granted t!at t!e date of receipt stamped on t!e letter $y t!e legal department-s legal receiving cler0 was t!e date of receipt from t!e post oKce. Co"nsel for appellant co"ld !ave easily fo"nd o"t t!e letter date t!at !e in"ired and t!e co"rt did not nd any e&c"se for fail"re to do so. %"c! fatal conse"ence !as often res"lted as w!at !appened to appellant-s rig!t to appeal in t!e instant case. Fail"re to ascertain date of receipt from post oKce of notice of decision res"lting in t!e non; perfection of t!e appellant-s appeal constit"tes negligence of attorneys.
Gaerlan vs Bernal
Agravante vs Patriarca FAC#% /n 19N H"ana >atriarca led an action to "iet title wit! CFL Cams"r. #!e pretrial was resc!ed"led after Aggravante moved for cancellation for illness of attorney and medcert was attac!ed wit! t!e motion. /t was denied for lac0 of notice to adverse party. >retrial was p"s!ed t!ro"g! wit! defendants a$sent. Aggravante declared to $e s"$stit"ted in !er stead. /t was granted. Aggravante led petition for certiorari wit! %C.
/%%E @7 Co"rt ac"ired ="risdiction over >atriarca.
4EL/73 Bes. Allegation of aggravante wad demise of >atriarca long $efore t!e pretrial setting prevented t!e #C from ac"iring ="risdiction over !er. %C said t!at ="risdiction over t!e
person of t!e plainti, is ac"ired $y t!e co"rt $y t!e ling of complaint. %"$se"ent deat! will not a,ect ="risdiction all t!at is entailed is t!e s"$stit"tion of t!e !eirs for t!e deceased in accordance wit! 4"le * %ection 1O. /n any gro"nd to oppose t!e s"$stit"tion or t!at t!ey !ad s",ered any pre="dice of any sort $y reason of s"$stit"tion.
Ventura vs Santos
Alcoriza vs Lumakang FAC#% AlcoriJa t!e defendant in a civil case and !is lawyer L"ma0ang were not present d"ring t!e decision despite t!e fact t!at t!ey were notied to do so. L"ma0ang averred t!at !e did not go to t!e co"rt $eca"se !e !as waited for AlcoriJa saying !e will not attend wit!o"t !im $eca"se it wo"ld $e lac0 of preparation on !is part as a lawyer. 'e $egan s"specting t!at AlcoriJa !as already lost !is interest and as a lawyer !e cannot $e more interested in !is client-s case t!an t!e client !imself.
/%%E @7 Atty L"ma0ang s!o"ld $e given disciplinary action.
4EL/73 7o. Alt!o"g! Atty. L"ma0ang was not prepared to enter into trial on t!at day still !e co"ld do t!ings to prote&t t!e interest of !is client $y appearing for !im in t!e co"rt. 'owever it is not considered t!at t!is inaction of Atty L"ma0ang wo"ld constit"te so serio"s a gro"nd as to warrant disciplinary action in view of t!e lac0 of interest w!ic! !is client !as s!own in t!e premises. L"ma0ang for !is fail"re to appear s!o"ld $e reprimanded for !is inaction as it wo"ld tend to diminis! tr"st and condence w!ic! t!e p"$lic is s"pposed to repose in t!e oKce of a lawyer.
Capulong vs Alino FAC#% 4espondent Ian"el Alino a mem$er of t!e $ar is c!arged $y !is former clients t!e spo"ses milio and Cirila Cap"long wit! alleged gross negligence tantamo"nt to malpractice and $etrayal of !is client- tr"st and condence after Atty Alino failed to pay doc0et fee and to deposit t!e estimated cost of printing of t!e record for t!e appeal t!ey led on Co"rt of Appeals after t!e decision on a civil case t!at was adverse t!e complainants. #!is fail"re res"lted to t!e dismissal of t!e appeal.
#!e respondent-s contention was t!e complainants !ad a"t!oriJed !im to e&ercise !is ="dgment and discretion in determining w!et!er or not !e s!o"ld prosec"te t!e appeal and to regard said s"m of >29 as compensation of !is services in connection wit! said case s!o"ld !e consider it advisa$le to desist from said appeal and e&pressed !is intention of introd"cing additional evidence.
/%%E @7 t!e actions of Alino constit"te legal malpractice
4EL/73 Bes. /n t!e view of t!e allegation in respondent-s answer t!e same designated its Legal Kcer for t!e reception of said evidence. Bet after sec"ring fo"r postponements of t!e date set $y said oKcer for t!is p"rpose respondent did not introd"ce any additional evidence in !is favo"r. Apart from s"ggesting a misappropriation of f"nds !eld $y !im in tr"st for !is clients and $reac! of s"c! tr"st t!e foregoing acts and omissions indicate t!e !ig! degree of irresponsi$ility of respondent !erein and !is "nwort!iness to contin"e as a mem$er of t!e legal profession. #!e respondent was dis$arred.
Republic vs Arro
Legarda vs CA
PHHC vs Tiongco FAC#% Appellants Ielc!or #iongco were registered s"atters of an area. Long $efore >eople-s 'omesite and 'o"sing Corporation declared a parcel of land em$raced in #C# 1*GN of t!e "eJon City 4egister of 5eeds. Appellants were already occ"pying t!e portion and !ave introd"ced improvements t!ereon and !ad declared t!e property for ta&ation p"rposes. /n t!e cens"s list of t!e corporation t!e appellants were considered a $onade occ"pants of t!e property and d"ring t!e same period t!ey !ad applied to p"rc!ase t!e property from t!e >''C. #!ey fo"nd o"t later t!at t!e same !ad already $een awarded to As"ncion nverga a relative of congressman in spite of t!e fact t!at s!e !ad not occ"pied t!e property at any time nor introd"ced any improvements. /mmediately "pon t!e discovery of t!e award a complaint was lodged $y #iongco and scasa wit! t!e appellee >''C. After a preliminary investigation of t!e complaint "genio Alvarado. Hr. c!ief of investigation and researc! section >''C investigating committee wit! t!e recommendation t!at t!ey !ave priority rig!ts to t!e property w!ic! was given after two investigations. #!e matter !as $een s"$mitted to t!e &ec"tive Committee to render t!eir ="dgment.
'owever no action !as $een ta0en on t!e report. Fo"r mont!s after t!e ling of t!e complaint t!e >''C instit"ted an action for 4ecovery of >ossession in t!e Co"rt of First /nstance of "eJon City t!e appellant interposes t!e defense of >riority of 4ig!t of >"rc!ase and a$ility to pay w!ic! was fo"nd in t!e investigation made $y t!e appellee. #!e case was set for !earing on Fe$r"ary O 19N1. #!e appellant-s co"nsel Atty. +onifacion #anega failed to notify t!e appellants of t!e sc!ed"led !earing. #!e case was !eard t!e plainti, introd"ced evidence s!owing owners!ip of t!e property. #!e ="dgment !eld t!at t!e plainti, is t!e owner of t!e land sit"ated in C and t!at t!e defendants wit!o"t t!e consent and 0nowledge of t!e plainti, entered and constr"cted t!eir !o"ses "pon t!en premises depriving t!e plainti, of t!e possession of t!e same parcel of land. #iongco and scasa were ordered to remove t!eir !o"ses and t!e improvements on t!em and pay t!e plainti, t!e s"m of >2N per mont! from t!e date of occ"pation "ntil premises in "estion is restored to t!e plainti, and t!e >2 in attorneys fees. Alt!o"g! t!e a$ove ="dgment was received $y co"nsel for t!e appellants !e never informed t!e latter a$o"t t!e matter. 7eit!er did !e ta0e steps to protect t!e interests of !is clients $y presenting a motion for reconsideration andor ling a petition to set aside ="dgment. Appellants only came to 0now t!at an adverse decision !ad $een prom"lgated w!en on Iay 19N1 t!e 5ep"ty %!eri, of C served t!em a copy of writ of e&ec"tion ordering t!em to vacate t!e premises and to pay t!e amo"nts ordained t!erein. Appellants lost no time in contacting t!eir co"nsel Atty #anega and failing to do so t!ey engaged t!e services of Atty. Ciriaco %ayson w!o presented wit! t!e lower co"rt a petition for relief from ="dgment accompanied $y aKdavits of merit. #!e presiding ="dge cited Atty #anega admitted to t!e co"rt t!at !e did not inform t!e appellants of t!e !earing as !e forgot all a$o"t t!e sameP t!at !e received t!e decision $"t did not also inform t!e appellants a$o"t it $eca"se !e forgot all a$o"t t!e case e&plaining t!at !e !ad so many e=ectment cases t!en t!at t!e orders and decisions in t!e case ="st escaped !is attention.
/%%E @7 Atty tanega-s cond"ct constit"tes negligence of !is d"ties as a lawyer.
4EL/73. #!ere was somet!ing s!y and s"spicio"s concerning t!e act"ations of former co"nsel Atty #anega in t!is cae. 'e did not give any signicance at all to t!e processes of t!e co"rt w!ic! !as proven pre="dicial to t!e rig!ts of !is clients. #!ere was not!ing w!ic! co"ld !ave prevented t!e appellants from attending t!e trial of t!e case t!emselves or moving for a reconsideration of t!e decision or ta0ing t!e necessary appeal from t!e ="dgment if only t!eir co"nsel !ad informed t!em of t!e co"rt-s processes. Co"nsel !ad simply ignored t!e rig!ts of !is clients $y giving a lame and Qimsy e&planation t!at t!e co"rt-s processes ="st escaped !is attention. 'e deprived t!em of t!eir day in co"rt. #!ere s!o"ld $e no disp"te regarding t!e doctrine t!at normally notice to co"nsel is notice to parties and t!at s"c! doctrine !as $enecient e,ects "pon t!e prompt dispensation of ="stice. /ts application to a given case !owever s!o"ld $e loo0ed into and adopted according to t!e s"rro"nding circ"mstancesP ot!erwise in t!e co"rt-s desire to ma0e a s!ortc"t of t!e proceedings it mig!t foster wittingly or "nwittingly dangero"s coll"sions to t!e detriment of ="stice. /t wo"ld t!en $e easy for one lawyer to sell one-s rig!ts down t!e river $y ="st alleging t!at !e ="st forgot every process of t!e co"rt a,ecting !is clients
$eca"se !e was so $"sy. Ender t!is circ"mstance one s!o"ld not insist t!at a notice to s"c! irresponsi$le lawyer is also a notice to !is clients. #!e attention of t!e trial co"rt is invited to t!e cens"ra$le cond"ct of Atty #anega in t!is partic"lar case and to ta0e s"c! action may $e warranted in t!e premises.
Blanza v Arcangel !"#$% F: 5"e to lac0 of evidence t!e %C dismissed t!e case against Atty. Arcangel w!o after vol"nteering to !elp petitioners +lanJa and >asion to claim pension (in connection wit! t!e deat!s t!eir >C !"s$ands) failed to inform t!em of t!e progress of t!eir case $eca"se t!ey !ad not paid !im for p!otostating e&penses !e !ad inc"rred.
': A lawyer !as a dynamic and positive role in t!e comm"nity t!an merely complying wit! t!e minimal tec!nicalities of t!e stat"re. As a man of law !e is necessarily a leader of t!e comm"nity loo0ed "p to as a model citiJen. 'is cond"ct m"st perforce $e par e&cellence especially so w!en as in t!is case !e vol"nteers !is professional services. 4espondent !ere !as not lived "p to t!at ideal standard. /t was "nnecessary to !ave complainants wait and !ope for si& long years on t!eir pension claims. Epon t!eir ref"sal to co;operate respondent s!o"ld !ave fort!wit!.
4+C/ v FL4/5A.C. 7o. GO*N H"ne 1 21CA4>/ H.: FAC#%: 4"ral +an0 of Calape /nc. led a complaint for dis$arment against respondent.
4+C/ allegedt!at respondent violated !is oat! and t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility.According to 4+C/ respondent and !is clients 7aJareno;4elampagos gro"p t!ro"g! force andintimidation forci$ly too0 over t!e management and t!e premises of 4+C/. #!ey also forci$ly evictedCirilo A. 3aray t!e $an0 manager destroyed t!e $an0-s va"lt and installed t!eir own sta, to r"n t!e $an0.4espondent added t!at t!e criminal complaint for malicio"s misc!ief led against !im $y 4+C/ wasalready dismissedP w!ile t!e complaint for grave coercion was ordered s"spend ed $eca"se of t!ee&istence of a pre="dicial "estion. 4espondent said t!at t!e dis$arment complaint was led against !imin retaliation for t!e administrative cases !e led against 4+C/-s co"nsel and t!e trial co"rt ="dges of +o!ol.Ioreover respondent claimed t!at 4+C/ failed to present any evidence to prove t!eir allegations.4espondent added t!at t!e aKdavits attac!ed to t!e complaint were never identied aKrmed or conrmed $y t!e aKants and t!at none of t!e doc"mentary e&!i$its were originals or certied tr"ecopies.
/%%E: @!et!er or not respondent violated !is oat! and t!e C>4 Canon 19. 'L5: #!e Co"rt !eld t!at respondent was g"ilty as c!arged and s"spended for a year. #!e rst andforemost d"ty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to t!e 4ep"$lic of t!e >!ilippines "p!old t!eConstit"tion and o$ey t!e laws of t!e land. /t is t!e lawyer-s d"ty to promote respect for t!e law and legal processes and to a$stain from activities aimed at deance of t!e law or lessening condence in t!e legalsystem.Canon 19 of t!e Code provides t!at a lawyer s!all represent !is client wit! Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!elaw. /t is !is d"ty to co"nsel !is clients to "se peacef"l and lawf"l met!ods in see0ing ="stice and refrainfrom doing an intentional wrong to t!eir adversaries.A lawyer-s d"ty is not to !is client $"t to t!e administration of ="stice. #o t!at end !is client-s s"ccess isw!olly s"$ordinate. 'is cond"ct o"g!t to and m"st always $e scr"p"lo"sly o$servant of t!e law andet!ics.Any means not !onora$le fair and !onest w!ic! is resorted to $y t!e lawyer even in t!e p"rs"it of !is devotion to !is client-s ca"se is condemna$le and "net!ical.
Facts: R Atty. Lolito 3. Aparicio appeared as legal co"nselfor 3race C. '"fana in an illegal dismissal case$efore t!e 7ational La$or 4elations Commission(7L4C) against complainant Fernando Iartin >ena.'"fana is praying for claim for separation pay $"t>ena re=ected t!e claim as $aseless. R #!ereafter Aparicio sent >ena a letter reiterating!is clientSs claim for separation pay. #!ro"g! !isletter !e t!reatened complainant t!at s!o"ld >enafail to pay t!e amo"nts t!ey propose as settlement!e wo"ld le and claim $igger amo"nts incl"dingmoral damages as well as m"ltiple c!arges s"c! asta& evasion falsication of doc"ments andcancellation of $"siness license to ope rate d"e toviolations of laws. /ss"e: R @7 Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.1) of t!eC>4 en=oining every lawyer to represent !is client wit!Jeal wit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e law
B%
7+: 4"le 19.1.
A lawyer s!all employ only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is client and s!all not present participate in presenting or t!reaten to present "nfo"nded criminal c!arges to o$tain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding.T R @7 it is proper to dis$ar Aparicio 7reprimand only'eld: R Ender Canon 19 a lawyer s!o"ld not le or t!reaten to le any "nfo"nded or $aseless criminalcase or cases against t!e adversaries of !is clientdesigned to sec"re leverage to compel t!eadversaries to yield or wit!draw t!e ir own casesagainst t!e lawyerSs client. R /n t!e case at $ar t!e t!reats are not only"net!ical for violating Canon 19 $"t t!ey alsoamo"nt to $lac0mail . +lac0mail is Tt!e e&tortion of money from a person $y t!reats of acc"sation or e&pos"re or opposition in t!e p"$lic printsUo$taining of val"e from a person as a condition of refraining from ma0ing an acc"sation against !im or disclosing some secret calc"lated to operate to !is pre="dice.T #!e letter in t!is case contains more t!an ="st a simple demand to pay. /t even contains at!reat to le retaliatory c!arges against complainantw!ic! !ave not!ing to do wit! !is clientSs claim for separation pay. /ndeed letters of t!is nat"re are denitely proscri$ed $y t!e Code of >rofessional4esponsi$ility. R
/t was not respondentSs intention to pointo"t complainantSs violations of t!e law as !e sogallantly claims. Far from it t!e letter even containsan implied promise to T0eep silentT a$o"t t!e saidviolations if payment of t!e claim is made on t!edate indicated. R 5C/%/7: @!ile t!e writing of t!e letter went $eyond et!ical standards we !old t!atdis$arment is too severe a penalty to $e imposed onrespondent considering t!at !e wrote t!e same o"tof !is overJealo"sness to protect !is clientSsinterests. Accordingly t!e more appropriate penaltyis reprimand. R n t!e s"i generis c!aracter of dis$armentproceedings t!e Co"rt ratiocinated in /n re Almacen :5isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are s"i generis . 7eit!er p"rely civil nor p"rely criminal t!ey do not involve a trial of an action or a s"it $"t israt!er an investigation $y t!e Co"rt into t!econd"ct of one of its oKcers . 7ot $eing intended toinQict p"nis!ment it is in no sense a criminalprosec"tion. Accordingly t!ere is neit!er a plainti, nor a prosec"tor t!erein . /t may $e initiated $y t!eCo"rt mot" proprio .
>"$lic interest is its primaryo$=ective and t!e real "estion for determinationis w!et!er or not t!e attorney is still a t personto $e allowed t!e privileges as s"c! . 'ence in t!ee&ercise of its disciplinary powers t!e Co"rt merelycalls "pon a mem$er of t!e +ar to acco"nt for !isact"ations as an oKcer of t!e Co"rt wit! t!e endin view of preserving t!e p"rity of t!e legalprofession and t!e proper and !onest administration of ="stice $y p"rging t!eprofession of mem$ers w!o $y t!eir miscond"ct!ave proved t!emselves no longer wort!y to $eentr"sted wit! t!e d"ties and responsi$ilitiespertaining to t!e oKce of an attorney. /n s"c!post"re t!ere can t!"s $e no occasion to spea0of a complainant or a prosec"tor . 45LF I/LLA4 petitioner vs. A##B. E%#AE/ V. I7#4 respondent. Complainant o$tained a favora$le ="dgment from t!e I#C w!ic! ordered respondent-s client to vacate t!e premises s"$=ect of t!e e=ectment case. respondent as co"nsel appealed t!e decision. CA dismissed CoSs appeal from t!e decision of t!e 4#C for fail"re to comply wit! t!e proper proced"res. 4espondent t!ereafter resorted to devio"s and "nder!anded means to delay t!e e&ec"tion of t!e ="dgment rendered $y t!e I#C adverse to !is client. 'eld: %E%>755 for (1) year. 4"le 12.2. W A lawyer s!all not le m"ltiple actions arising from t!e same ca"se. 4"le 12.. W A lawyer s!all not "nd"ly delay a case impede t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment or mis"se co"rt processes. Ender Canon 19 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility a lawyer is re"ired to represent !is client Twit!in t!e $o"nds of t!e law.T #!e Code en=oins a lawyer to employ only fair and !onest means to attain t!e lawf"l o$=ectives of !is client (4"le 19.1) and warns !im not to allow !is client to dictate t!e proced"re in !andling t!e case (4"le 19.*). /n s!ort a lawyer is not a g"n for !ire. /t is "net!ical for a lawyer to a$"se or wrongf"lly "se t!e ="dicial process li0e t!e ling of dilatory motions repetitio"s litigation and frivolo"s appeals for t!e sole p"rpose of fr"strating and delaying t!e e&ec"tion of a ="dgment. A ="dgment can $e ann"lled only on two gro"nds: (a) t!at t!e ="dgment is void for want of ="risdiction or for lac0 of d"e process of law or ($) t!at it !as $een o$tained $y fra"d.
H"dging from t!e n"m$er of actions led $y respondent to forestall t!e e&ec"tion of t!e same ="dgment respondent is also g"ilty of for"m s!opping. For"m s!opping e&ists w!en $y reason of an adverse decision in one for"m defendant vent"res to anot!er for a more favora$le resol"tion of !is case.
Corp"J vs CA Atty 5avid and Corp"J were good friends. /n Corp"J-s civil case 5avid $ecame !is co"nsel. >rior to rendering of nal ="dgment Corp"J gave t!e lawyer a c!ec0 w!ic! t!e latter ret"rned. After favora$le decision was rendered Atty. 5avid demanded attorney-s fee w!ic! Corp"J ref"sed to deliver alleging t!at 5avid-s services were o,ered grat"ito"sly. #!e Co"rt decided t!at Atty. 5avid s!o"ld $e paid attorney-s fees.
': An attorney;client relations!ip can $e created $y implied agreement as w!en t!e attorney act"ally rendered legal services for a person w!o is a close friend. #!e o$ligation of s"c! a person to pay attorney-s fees is $ased on t!e law of contractsconcept of facio "t des (no one s!all "n="stly enric! !imself at t!e e&pense of ot!ers.) A$sence of an e&press contract for attorney-s fees $etween respondent 5avid and petitioner Corp"s is no arg"ment against t!e payment of attorney-s fees considering t!eir close relations!ip w!ic! signies m"t"al tr"st and condence $etween t!em.
Al$ano v. Coloma (19NO) F: Coloma was Al$ano-s co"nsel d"ring t!e Hapanese occ"pation. According to Al$ano Coloma failed to e&pedite !earing and termination of case. Coloma denied t!at s!e did not!ing to e&pedite t!e !earing and termination of s"c! civil case as t!e records wo"ld s!ow ot!erwise. After Al$anos won in t!e case Coloma intervened to collect attorney-s fee w!ic! is comp"ted at **.*X of w!at t!e Al$anos can recover. #!e Co"rt !eld t!at Coloma may recover attorney-s fees.
': Co"nsel any co"nsel if wort!y of !is !ire is entitled to $e f"lly recompensed for !is services. @it! !is capital consisting solely of !is $rains and !is s0ill ac"ired at tremendo"s cost not only in money $"t in t!e e&pendit"re of time and energy !e is entitled to t!e protection of any ="dicial tri$"nal against any attempt on t!e part of a client to escape payment of !is fees. /t is indeed ironic if after p"tting fort! t!e
$est t!at is in !im to sec"re ="stice for t!e party !e represents !e !imself wo"ld not get !is d"e. %"c! an event"ality t!is Co"rt is determined to avoid.
Case of #raders 4oyal +an0 mployees Enion; /ndependent vs 7L4C and mman"el 7oel A. Cr"J 3.4.7o. 12G92 1Iarc!199O FAC#% F #' CA%: #!at #4+ mployees Enion !ad a retainer agreement wit! Atty. Cr"J for *. in consideration of t!e law rm-s "nderta0ing to render t!e services en"merated in t!eir contract. 5"ring t!e e&istence of t!e agreement t!e "nion referred to t!e private respondent t!e claims of its mem$ers for !oliday mid;year and year;end $on"ses against t!eir employer #4+. #!e 7L4C granted t!e petition of t!e "nion wit! regard to t!e demand for $on"ses. After t!e %.C. acting "pon t!e c!allenge of #4+an0 of t!e 7L4C decision in its decision on A"g"st * 199 modied t!e decision of t!e 7L4C $y deleting t!e award of mid; year and year; end $on"s di,erentials w!ile aKrming t!e award of !oliday pay di,erential. After #4+ vol"ntarily complied wit! t!e decision t!e respondent on %eptem$er 1 199 notied t!e "nion #4+ management and t!e 7L4C of !is rig!t to e&ercise and enforce !is attorney-s lien over t!e award of !oliday pay di,erential t!ro"g! a letter dated cto$er 199. /%%E% F #' CA%: @as t!e lien made $y t!e respondent attorney over t!e award as attorney-s fees valid ; Bes +eca"se t!e contract $etween t!e Enion and t!e attorney stip"lates t!at t!e *. paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for t!e law rm-s commitment to render t!e services en"merated on >A4# A and + of t!e retainer agreement. ; #!e retainer fee paid $y t!e Enion is not a payment for t!e rm-s e&ec"tion or performance of t!e services listed in t!e contract s"$=ect to t!e partic"lar "alications. ; $ligations do not emanate only from contracts. ne of t!e so"rces of e&tra; contract"al o$ligations fo"nd in o"r civil code is t!e "asi contract premised on t!e roman ma&im t!at nemo alteri"s detrimento loc"pletari potest ; As early as 19* t!e co"rt !as allowed t!e payment of reasona$le professional fees to an interpreter not wit!standing t!e lac0 of "nderstanding wit! !is client as to !is rem"neration on t!e $asis a "asi;contract. /t is not necessary t!at t!e
parties agree on a denite fee for t!e special services rendered $y t!e rm in order t!at t!e "nion may $e o$ligated to pay compensation. "ity and fair play dictate t!at petitioner s!o"ld pay t!e same after it accepted availed itself of and $eneted from t!e rm-s services. ; #!e meas"re of compensation for private respondent-s services as against !is client s!o"ld $e properly addressed $y t!e r"le of "ant"m mer"it is "sed as t!e $asis for determining t!e lawyer-s professional fees in t!e a$sence of a contract. 'L5: #!e resol"tion of t!e 7L4C wit! regard to t!e attorney-s fees is modied and Enion is !ere$y ordered to pay 1 for t!e rm-s rendered services. $ligations and Contracts #erms: R 3eneral 4etaining Fee; is t!e fee paid to a lawyer to sec"re !is f"t"re services as general co"nsel for any ordinary legal pro$lem t!at may arise from ro"tinary $"siness of t!e client and referred to !im for legal action. #!e reason for t!e rem"neration is t!at t!e lawyer is deprived of t!e opport"nity of rendering services for a fee to t!e opposing party or ot!er parties. /t is a compensation for lost opport"nities.
5isting"is! from 4"le * M 7ocom v. Camerino 34 129 Fe$ 1 29 F: Camarino were agric"lt"ral tenants w rig!t to redeem. Allegedly e&ec"ted an irrevoca$le >ower of Atty to sell parcels of land. %"$se"ently annotated to t!e #C#. Camarino wanted to ann"l s"c! consent was vitiated $eca"se did not 0now it was an irrevoca$le power of attorney. 7ocom alleged t!at it cannot $e cancelled "nilaterally alleged t!at !e paid for it....Camarinos led motion for s"mmary ="dgment stating t!at sicne 7ocom admitted to t!e e&istence of t!e irrevoca$le power of attorney...s"mmary ="dgment proper $eca"se only resolve @7 it was co"pled w interest and @7 it is irrevoca$le. Allege t!at t!ere is not iss"e as to t!e contents of t!e irrevoca$le power of atty ': facts not s"$=ect motion for s"mmary =d"gment 2 re"isites: 7o gen"ine iss"e as to material facts >arty moving for s"mmary ="dgment entitled to ="dgment $y law 3enato v. %ilapan G* >!il. 91 (2*) Facts: Atty. %ilapan and 3enato !ad an attorney;client relations!ip. 3enato led c!arges against %ilapan d"e to t!e latter-s fail"re to pay amortiJation fees. %ilapan alleged in !is answer t!at 3enato is a $"sinessman in real estate $"siness w!o traded and
$"ys and sells deciency ta&ed imported cars provides s!ar0 loan and engages in ot!er s!ady deals. 'e also alleged t!at 3enato !as many pending cases and !ad attempted to $ri$e oKcials to lift t!e case. #!e %C !eld t!at %ilapan !ad violated condentiality of lawyer;client relations!ip. 'eld: Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility provides t!at a lawyer owes delity to t!e ca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and condence reposed on !im. #!e r"le is t!at an attorney is not permitted to disclose comm"nications made to !im in !is professional c!aracter $y a client "nless t!e latter consents. #!is o$ligation to preserve t!e condences and secrets of a client arises at t!e inception of t!eir relations!ip. #!e protection given to t!e client is perpet"al and does not cease wit! t!e termination of t!e litigation nor is it a,ected $y t!e party-s ceasing to employ t!e attorney and retaining anot!er or $y any ot!er c!ange of relation $etween t!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e client. /t m"st $e stressed !owever t!at t!e privilege against disclos"re of condential comm"nications or information is limited only to comm"nications w!ic! are legitimately and properly wit!in t!e scope of a lawf"l employment of a lawyer. /t does not e&tend to t!ose made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fra"d. /t is not wit!in t!e profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to !ow !e may commit a crime. #!"s t!e attorney;client privilege does not attac! t!ere $eing no professional employment in t!e strict sense. 7evert!eless respondent-s e&planation t!at it was necessary for !im to ma0e t!e disclos"res in !is pleading fails to satisfy t!e Co"rt. #!e disclos"res were not indispensa$le to protect !is rig!ts as t!ey were not pertinent to t!e foreclos"re case. /t was improper for t!e respondent to "se it against t!e complainant in t!e foreclos"re case as it was not t!e s"$=ect matter of litigation t!erein and respondent-s professional competence and legal advice were not $eing attac0ed in said case.
37A# v. %/LA>A7 >E7 H"ly 1 2*7A#E4Complaint for dis$arment
&ACTS (Complainant-s side);H"ly 1992 respondent allegedly as0ed t!e complainant if !e co"ld rent asmall oKce space in complainant-s$"ilding in "eJon City for !is law practice. Complainant acceded and introd"ced respondent to Atty.+en=amin 5acanay complainant-s retained lawyer w!o accommodated respondent in t!e $"ilding and made !im !andle some of complainant-s cases.;4espondent $orrowed two !"ndred t!o"sand pesos (>2.) from complainant w!ic! !e intended to "se as down payment for t!e p"rc!ase of a new car. /n ret"rn respondent iss"ed to complainant a postdated c!ec0 in t!e amo"nt of >1ONG2.to answer for t!e si& (N) mont!s interest on t!e loan. 'e li0ewise mortgaged to complainant !is !o"se and lot in "eJon City $"t did not s"rrender its title claiming t!at it was t!e s"$=ect of reconstit"tion proceedings $efore t!e "eJon City 4egister of 5eeds.;#!e respondent $o"g!t t!e car $"t t!e doc"ment of sale was iss"ed in t!e complainant-s name and nanced t!ro"g! City #r"st Company.;Han"ary 199*: respondent introd"ced to complainant a certain mman"el 4omero w!o wanted to $orrow money from complainant. Complainant lent 4omero t!e money and from
t!is transaction respondent earned commission in t!e amo"nt of >G229.9. Complainant "sed t!e commission to pay respondent-s arrears wit! t!e car nancing rm.;%"$se"ently respondent failed to pay t!e amortiJation on t!e car and t!e nancing rm sent demand letters to complainant. Complainant tried to encas! respondent-s postdated c!ec0 wit! t!e drawee $an0 $"t it was dis!onored as respondent-s acco"nt t!erein was already closed. 4espondent failed to !eed complainant-s repeated demands for payment. Complainant t!en led a criminal case against respondent for violation of +atas >am$ansa +lg. 22and a civil case for ="dicial foreclos"re of real estate mortgage.;/n t!e foreclos"re case t!ere spondent alleged t!at t!e complainant is engaged in $"y and sell of deciency ta&ed imported carss!ar0 loans and s!ady deals and !as many cases pending in co"rt w!ic! t!e complainant denied adding t!at t!e allegations were li$elo"s and were irrelevant to t!e foreclos"re case. A partic"lar allegation states t!at in one case t!e complainant wo"ld only give t!e respondent t!e doc"ment of sale of t!e car if t!e latter wo"ld $ri$e t!e review committee of t!e 5H for a case of t!e complainant. According to t!e complainant t!e allegation was aside from $eing false immaterial to t!e foreclos"re case and malicio"sly designed to defame !im t!e respondent was also g"ilty of $rea0ing t!eir condential lawyer;client relations!ip and s!o"ld $e !eld administratively lia$le.; t!e complainant t!en led t!is complaint for dis$arment praying also t!at an administrative sanction $e meted against respondent for !isiss"ance of a $o"ncing c!ec0 (respondent-s side);/t was complainant w!o o,ered !im an oKce space in !is $"ilding and retained !im as co"nsel as t!e latter was impressed wit! t!e way !e !andled a +.>. 22 case led against complainant.;#!ere was not!ing li$elo"s in !is imp"tations of dis!onest $"siness practices to complainant and !is revelation of complainant-s desire to $ri$e government oKcials in relation to !is pending criminal case. 'e claimed to !ave made t!ese statements in t!e co"rse of ="dicial proceedings to defend !is case and discredit complainant-s credi$ility $y esta$lis!ing !is criminal propensity to commit fra"d tell lies and violate laws. 'e arg"ed t!at !e is not g"ilty of $rea0ing !is condential lawyer;client relations!ip wit! complainant a s!e made t!e disclos"re in defense of !is !onor and rep"tation.; 4espondent asserted t!at !e e&ec"ted t!e real estate mortgage infavor of complainant wit!o"t consideration and only as a formal re"irement so !e co"ld o$tain t!e>2. loan and for t!is reason !e did not s"rrender !is title over t!e mortgaged property to complainant.;4espondent claimed t!at !e iss"ed t!e postdated c!ec0 not for acco"nt or for val"e $"t only: (a) to serve assome 0ind of ac0nowledgment t!at !e already received in advance a portion of !is attorney-s fees from t!e complainant for t!e legal services !e rendered and ($) as a form of ass"rance t!at !e will not a$andon t!e cases !e was !andling for complainant.; 4espondent denied t!at !e received a >G229.9 commission from 4omero-s loan w!ic! !e allegedly !elped facilitate alleging t!at t!e amo"nt paid to !im was for attorney-s fees. 'e "sed t!is amo"nt to pay !is arrears wit! t!e car nancing rm. n Han"ary 29 199* $efore paying t!e ne&t amortiJation on t!e car !e as0ed
complainant to e&ec"te a deed of sale transferring owners!ip of t!e car to !im. Complainant ref"sed and insisted t!at !e wo"ld transfer owners!ip of t!e car only after t!e termination of !is criminal case w!ic! respondent was !andling as !is defense lawyer. Conse"ently respondent stopped paying t!e amortiJation on t!e car. 4espondent also alleged t!at !e led a per="ry case against complainant w!o in t"rn led a complaint for li$el against !im.;cto$er 2O 199*: t!e Co"rt referred t!e administrative case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines (/+>)for investigation report and recommendation.;A"g"st * 22 t!e +oard of 3overnors of t!e /+> approved t!e report of t!e investigating commissioner nding t!e respondent g"ilty as c!arged and recommending !is s"spension from t!e practice of law for one (1) year./%%E%1. @7 t!e co"rt !as t!e ="risdiction to sanction respondent for !isiss"ance of t!e $o"ncing c!ec0.2. @7 t!e respondent committed a $reac! of tr"st and condence $y imp"ting to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainant-s alleged intention to $ri$e government oKcials in connection wit! a pending case and t!"s wo"ld $e sanctioned. 'L51. 7 it is not for t!e Co"rt to sanction respondent for !is iss"ance of a $o"ncing c!ec0 w!ic! wo"ld $e determined $yt!e trial co"rt. 4atio @e s!all not delve into t!emerits of t!e vario"s criminal and civilcases pending $etween t!e parties. /tis for t!e trial co"rts !andling t!esecases to ascertain t!e tr"t! or falsityof t!e allegations made t!erein.2. B% respondent-s allegations anddisclos"res in t!e foreclos"re caseamo"nt to a $reac! of delitys"Kcient to warrant t!e imposition of disciplinary sanction against !im. 4atio A lawyer m"st cond"ct !imselfespecially in !is dealings wit! !isclients wit! integrity in a manner t!atis $eyond reproac!. 'is relations!ipwit! !is clients s!o"ld $ec!aracteriJed $y t!e !ig!est degree of good fait! and fairness. 4easoning Canon 1O of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility providest!at a lawyer owes delity to t!eca"se of !is client and s!all $emindf"l of t!e tr"st and condencereposed on !im. #!e long;esta$lis!edr"le is t!at an attorney is notpermitted to disclose comm"nicationsmade to !im in !is professionalc!aracter $y a client "nless t!e latterconsents.;#!e o$ligation to preserve t!econdences and secrets of a clientarises at t!e inception of t!eirrelations!ip. #!e protection given tot!e client is perpet"al and does notcease wit! t!e termination of t!elitigation nor is it a,ected $y t!eparty-s ceasing to employ t!eattorney and retaining anot!er or $yany ot!er c!ange of relation $etweent!em. /t even s"rvives t!e deat! of t!e client.;'owever t!e privilege against disclos"re of condential comm"nications or information islimited only to comm"nications w!ic!are legitimately and properly
wit!int!e scope of a lawf"l employment of alawyer./t does not e&tend to t!osemade in contemplation of a crime orperpetration of a fra"d. /f t!e "nlawf"lp"rpose is avowed as in t!is case t!ecomplainant-s alleged intention to$ri$e government oKcials in relationto !is case t!e comm"nication is notcovered $y t!e privilege as t!e clientdoes not cons"lt t!e lawyerprofessionally. /t is not wit!in t!eprofession of a lawyer to advise aclient as to !ow !e may commit acrime as a lawyer is not a g"n for!ire. #!"s t!e attorney;clientprivilege does not attac! t!ere $eingno professional employment in t!estrict sense.;#!e disclos"res were notindispensa$le to protect !is rig!ts ast!ey were not pertinent to t!eforeclos"re case. /t was improper fort!e respondent to "se it against t!ecomplainant in t!e foreclos"re case asit was not t!e s"$=ect matter of litigation t!erein and respondent-sprofessional competence and legaladvice were not $eing attac0ed in saidcase. 5isposition /7 8/@ @'4Frespondent Atty. sse& L. %ilapan isordered s"spended from t!e practiceof law for a period of si& (N) mont!se,ective "pon receipt of t!is5ecision. Let a copy of t!is 5ecision$e f"rnis!ed t!e Kce of t!e +arCondant and t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines. #!e Co"rtAdministrator is directed to circ"latet!is order of s"spension to all co"rtsin t!e co"ntry.% 4545.
3.4. 7o. L;9N1 %eptem$er 21 199 +LA75/7A 3AI+A '/LA5 petitioner vs. H% 3E#/44V 5A8/5 8/C7# H. F4A7C/%C HAC+ A%%A5 and %L/I HAC+ A%%A5 respondents. >etitioner alleged t!at s!e and t!e co"nsel for t!e defendant !ad an attorney;client relations!ip wit! !er w!en $efore t!e trial of t!e case s!e went to defendant-s co"nsel gave !im t!e papers of t!e case and ot!er information relevant t!ereto alt!o"g! s!e was not a$le to pay !im legal fees. #!at respondent-s law rm mailed to t!e plainti, a written opinion over !is signat"re on t!e merits of !er caseP t!at t!is opinion was reac!ed on t!e $asis of papers s!e !ad s"$mitted at !is oKceP t!at Irs. 'iladoSs p"rpose in s"$mitting t!ose papers was to sec"re Attorney FranciscoSs professional services. Atty. Francisco appeared as co"nsel for defendant and plainti, did not o$=ect to it "ntil () mont!s after. #!en plainti, moved to dismiss t!e case $etween !er and defendant. /ss"e: @as t!ere an attorney;client relations!ip $etween plainti, and Atty. Francisco 'eld: B%. /n order to constit"te t!e relation a professional one and not merely one
of principal and agent t!e attorneys m"st $e employed eit!er to give advice "pon a legal point to prosec"te or defend an action in co"rt of ="stice or to prepare and draft in legal form s"c! papers as deeds $ills contracts and t!e li0e. #o constit"te professional employment it is not essential t!at t!e client s!o"ld !ave employed t!e attorney professionally on any previo"s occasion. /t is not necessary t!at any retainer s!o"ld !ave $een paid promised or c!arged forP neit!er is it material t!at t!e attorney cons"lted did not afterward "nderta0e t!e case a$o"t w!ic! t!e cons"ltation was !ad. /f a person in respect to !is $"siness a,airs or tro"$les of any 0ind cons"lts wit! !is attorney in !is professional capacity wit! t!e view to o$taining professional advice or assistance and t!e attorney vol"ntarily permits or ac"iesces in s"c! cons"ltation t!en t!e professional employment m"st $e regarded as esta$lis!ed. An attorney is employed;t!at is !e is engaged in !is professional capacity as a lawyer or co"nselor;w!en !e is listening to !is clientSs preliminary statement of !is case or w!en !e is giving advice t!ereon ="st as tr"ly as w!en !e is drawing !is clientSs pleadings or advocating !is clientSs ca"se in open co"rt. An acceptance of t!e relation is implied on t!e part of t!e attorney from !is acting in $e!alf of !is client in p"rs"ance of a re"est $y t!e latter. #!at only copies of pleadings already led in co"rt were f"rnis!ed to Attorney Agrava and t!at t!is $eing so no secret comm"nication was transmitted to !im $y t!e plainti, wo"ld not vary t!e sit"ation even if we s!o"ld discard Irs. 'iladoSs statement t!at ot!er papers personal and private in c!aracter were t"rned in $y !er. >recedents are at !and to s"pport t!e doctrine t!at t!e mere relation of attorney and client o"g!t to precl"de t!e attorney from accepting t!e opposite partySs retainer in t!e same litigation regardless of w!at information was received $y !im from !is rst client. An attorney on terminating !is employment cannot t!ereafter act as co"nsel against !is client in t!e same general matter even t!o"g! w!ile acting for !is former client !e ac"ired no 0nowledge w!ic! co"ld operate to !is clientSs disadvantage in t!e s"$se"ent adverse employment TA retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or co"nsel to ins"re and sec"re !is f"t"re services and ind"ce !im to act for t!e client. /t is intended to rem"nerate co"nsel for $eing deprived $y $eing retained $y one party of t!e opport"nity of rendering services to t!e ot!er and of receiving pay from !im and t!e payment of s"c! fee in t!e a$sence of an e&press "nderstanding to t!e contrary is neit!er made nor received in payment of t!e services contemplatedP its payment !as no relation to t!e o$ligation of t!e client to pay !is attorney for t!e services w!ic! !e !as retained !im to perform.T
Felicisimo Iontano vs /+> >77#: >/7% A75 Atty. HEA7 %. 5ALCA respondents. 4%LE#/7 E7A7 H.: /n a veried complaint led $efore t!is Co"rt on Iarc! 9 199 complainant Felicisimo I. Iontano c!arged Atty. H"an 5ealca wit! miscond"ct and prays t!at !e $e sternly dealt wit administratively. #!e complaintY1ZY1Z is s"mmariJed as follows: 1. n 7ovem$er 1 1992 t!e complainant !ired t!e services of Atty. H"an %. 5ealca as !is co"nsel in colla$oration wit! Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in a case pending $efore t!e Co"rt of Appeals doc0eted as CA;3.4. C8 7o. *ONO w!erein t!e complainant was t!e plainti,;appellant. 2. #!e parties agreed "pon attorney-s fees in t!e amo"nt of >1G. fty percent (GX) of w!ic! was paya$le "pon acceptance of t!e case and t!e remaining $alance "pon t!e termination of t!e case. Accordingly complainant paid respondent t!e amo"nt of >OG. representing GX of t!e attorney-s fee. *. #!ereafter even $efore t!e respondent co"nsel !ad prepared t!e appellant-s $rief and contrary to t!eir agreement t!at t!e remaining $alance $e paya$le after t!e termination of t!e case Atty. 5ealca demanded an additional payment from complainant. Complainant o$liged $y paying t!e amo"nt of >.. . >rior to t!e ling of t!e appellant-s $rief respondent co"nsel again demand
payment of t!e remaining $alance of *G.. @!en complainant was "na$le to do so respondent lawyer wit!drew !is appearance as complainant-s co"nsel wit!o"t !is prior 0nowledge andor conformity. 4et"rning t!e case folder to t!e complainant respondent co"nsel attac!ed a 7ote dated Fe$r"ary 2 199*Y1ZY2Z stating: 2 Fe$r"ary 199 >epe and 5el Iontano For $rea0ing yo"r promise since yo" do not want to f"lll yo"r end of t!e $argain !ere-s yo"r reward: 'encefort! yo" lawyer for yo"rselves. 'ere are yo"r papers. Ho!nny Complainant claimed t!at s"c! cond"ct $y respondent co"nsel e&ceeded t!e et!ical standards of t!e law profession and prays t!at t!e latter $e sternly dealt wit! administratively. Complainant later on led motions praying for t!e imposition of t!e ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment. After respondent co"nsel led !is comment on t!e complaint t!e Co"rt in t!e 4esol"tion of A"g"st 1 199 referred t!e case to t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines (/+>) for investigation report and recommendation. #!e /nvestigating Commissioner fo"nd respondent co"nsel g"ilty of "nprofessional cond"ct and recommended t!at !e $e severely reprimanded. 'owever in a 4esol"tionY1ZY*Z $y t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors on H"ly 2N 199O it was resolved t!at t!e penalty recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner meted to respondent $y amended to t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension from t!e practice of law for !aving $een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic condence regarding !is d"ty as a lawyer. 4espondent co"nsel so"g!t reconsideration of t!e aforementioned resol"tion of t!e /+> alleging t!at t!e latter misappre!ended t!e facts and t!at in any case !e did not deserve t!e penalty imposed. #!e tr"e facts according to !im are t!e following: 1. Complainant is $eing represented $y Atty. 4onando L. 3erona in !is case on appealP 2. 5"e to t!e ailment of Atty. 3erona-s da"g!ter !e co"ld not prepare and s"$mit complainant-s appellant-s $rief on timeP *. Complainant went to t!e respondent to do ="st t!at i.e. prepare and s"$mit !is appellant-s $rief on time at t!e agreed fee of >1G. GX down and GX "pon its completionP . @or0ing overtime respondent was a$le to nis! t!e appellant-s $rief a!ead of its deadline so !e advised t!e complainant a$o"t its completion wit! t!e re"est t!at t!e remaining $alance of >OG. $e paid. Complainant paid >. only promising to pay t!e >*G. tomorrow or on later partic"lar date. >lease ta0e note t!at at t!is ="nct"re t!ere was already a $reac! of t!e agreement on complainant-s part. G. @!en t!at tomorrow or on a later partic"lar date came respondent t!r" a messenger re"ested t!e complainant to pay t!e >*G. as promised $"t word was sent t!at !e will again pay tomorrow or on later date. #!is promise;non;
payment cycle went on repeatedly "ntil t!e last day of t!e ling of t!e $rief. >lease ta0e note again t!at it was not t!e respondent $"t t!e complainant w!o sets t!e date w!en !e will pay yet fails to pay as promisedP N. ven wit!o"t $eing paid completely respondent of !is own free will and accord led complainant-s $rief on timeP O. After t!e $rief was led respondent tried to collect from t!e complainant t!e remaining $alance of >*G. $"t t!e latter made !imself scarce. As t!e records wo"ld s!ow s"c! >*G. remains "npaid "ntil nowP . %ensing t!at somet!ing was amiss respondent sent t!e Fe$r"ary 2 199* note and case folder to t!e complainant !oping t!at t!e latter wo"ld see personally t!e former a$o"t it to settle t!e matter $etween t!emP 9. 'owever instead of seeing t!e respondent complainant led t!is caseP 1. 4espondent was constrained to le !is wit!drawal wit! t!e Co"rt of Appeals $eca"se of t!is case to avoid f"rt!er mis"nderstanding since !e was t!e one w!o signed t!e appellant-s $rief alt!o"g! Atty. 3erona was !is co"nsel of record. %"c! wit!drawal was accordingly granted $y t!e appellate co"rtP &&& &&& &&&.Y1ZYZ 4espondent co"nsel f"rt!er averred t!at complainant-s ref"sal to pay t!e agreed lawyer-s fees measly as it was was deli$erate and in $ad fait!P !ence !is wit!drawal as co"nsel was ="st et!ical and proper. 4espondent co"nsel concl"ded t!at not only was t!e penalty of s"spension !ars! for !is act of merely trying to collect payment for !is services rendered $"t it indirectly wo"ld p"nis! !is family since !e was t!e sole $readwinner wit! c!ildren in sc!ool and !is wife terminally ill wit! cancer. /n its 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129 dated cto$er 2G 199O t!e /+> denied Atty. 5ealca-s motion for reconsideration to wit: &&& 4%L85 # 57B Atty. 5ealca-s Iotion For 4econsideration of t!e +oard-s 5ecision in t!e a$ove;entitled case t!ere $eing no s"$stantive reason to reverse t!e nding t!erein. Ioreover t!e motion is improperly laid t!e remedy of t!e respondent is to le t!e appropriate pleading wit! t!e %"preme Co"rt wit!in fteen (1G) days from receipt of notice of said 5ecision p"rs"ant to %ec. 12 YcZ of 4"le 1*9; +.Y1ZYGZ n 5ecem$er 1 199O t!is Co"rt noted t!e following pleadings led in t!e present complaint (a) notice and a copy of 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1G dated H"ly 2N 199O of t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines amending t!e recommendation of t!e /nvestigating Commissioner of reprimand to t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension of respondent from t!e practice of law for !aving $een fo"nd g"ilty of miscond"ct w!ic! eroded t!e p"$lic condence regarding !is d"ty as a lawyerP ($) complainant-s motion for praying for t!e imposition of t!e ma&im"m penalty of dis$armentP (c) motion dated %eptem$er 1G 199O of respondent for reconsideration of t!e aforesaid resol"tion of H"ly 2N 199OP
(d) commentopposition of respondent praying t!at t!e motion for t!e imposition of t!e ma&im"m penalty $e deniedP (e) comment of complainant praying t!at t!e penalty of t!ree (*) mont!s s"spension for t!e practice of law as recommended $y t!e /ntegrated +ar of t!e >!ilippines p"rs"ant to 4esol"tion 7o. [//;9O;1G $e raised to a !eavier penaltyP (f) commentmanifestationopposition of complainant praying t!at t!e respondent $e dis$arredP and (g) re=oinder of respondent praying t!at t!is case $e dismissed for $eing $aseless. Y1ZYNZ and referred t!e same to t!e /+> for eval"ation and report. /n compliance t!erewit! on Iarc! 2 199 t!e /+> iss"ed 4esol"tion 7o. [///;9;2 referring t!e a$ove;entitled case to Commissioner 8i$ar for eval"ation report and recommendation in view of t!e Iotion for 4econsideration granted $y t!e %"preme Co"rt. #!e /nvestigating Commissioner after referring t!e case recommended t!at !is original recommendation of t!e imposition of t!e penalty of reprimand $e maintained noting t!at respondent co"nsel !ad served t!e /+> well as >resident of t!e %orsogon C!apter.Y1ZYOZ Accordingly on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999 t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors iss"ed t!e following resol"tion: 4%LE#/7 7. [///;99; &&& 4%L85 to A5># and A>>48 as it is !ere$y A5>#5 and A>>485 t!e 4eport and 4ecommendation of t!e /nvestigating Commissioner in t!e a$ove; entitled case !erein made part of t!is 4esol"tion5ecision as Anne& AP and nding t!e recommendation f"lly s"pported $y t!e evidence on record and t!e applica$le laws and r"les t!e Iotion for 4econsideration $e granted and t!at t!e penalty of 4>4/IA75 earlier recommended $y t!e /nvestigating Commissioner $e imposed on Atty. H"an %. 5ealca.Y1ZYZ Complainant as0ed t!e /+> to reconsider t!e foregoing resol"tion $"t t!e motion was denied.Y1ZY9Z n April 1 2 complainant led wit! t!is Co"rt a petition for review on certiorari in connection wit! Administrative Case 7o. 21G against t!e /+> and respondent co"nsel averring t!at t!e /+> +oard of 3overnors committed grave a$"se of discretion w!en it overt"rned its earlier resol"tion and granted respondent co"nsel-s motion for reconsideration on Fe$r"ary 2* 1999. 'e claimed t!at t!e earlier resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration iss"ed on cto$er 2G 199O !ad already $ecome nal and e&ec"toryP !ence any f"rt!er action or motion s"$se"ent to s"c! nal and e&ec"tory ="dgment s!all $e n"ll and void. @!en t!e Co"rt iss"ed t!e resol"tion of 5ecem$er 1 199O treating t!e several pleadings led in t!e present complaint it s!o"ld $e noted t!at t!e /+> resol"tion denying respondent-s motion for reconsideration (4esol"tion 7o. [///;9O;129) dated cto$er 2G 199O for some reason !ad not yet reac!ed t!is Co"rt. As of t!at date t!e only /+> resol"tion attac!ed to t!e records of t!e case was 4esol"tion 7o. [//; 9O;G amending t!e administrative sanction from reprimand to t!ree mont!s
s"spension. 'ence at t!e time t!e pleadings were referred $ac0 to t!e /+> in t!e same resol"tion t!e Co"rt was not aware t!at t!e /+> !ad already disposed of t!e motion for reconsideration led $y respondent co"nsel. #!"s w!en t!e /+> was informed of t!e said Co"rt resol"tion it constr"ed t!e same as granting Atty. 5ealca-s motion for reconsideration and as an order for /+> to cond"ct a re;eval"ation of t!e case. #!e /+> ass"med t!at its resol"tion of cto$er 2G 199O was already considered $y t!is Co"rt w!en it referred t!e case $ac0 to t!e /+>. /t failed to notice t!at its resol"tion denying t!e motion for reconsideration was not among t!ose pleadings and resol"tion referred $ac0 to it. 'ence on t!e strengt! of t!is Co"rt-s resol"tion w!ic! it !ad inadvertently misconstr"ed t!e /+> cond"cted a re;eval"ation of t!e case and came "p wit! t!e assailed resol"tion now so"g!t to $e reversed. #!e Co"rt !olds t!at t!e error is not attri$"ta$le to t!e /+>. /t is regretta$le t!at t!e proced"ral inrmity alleged $y complainant act"ally arose from a mere oversig!t w!ic! was attri$"ta$le to neit!er party. 3oing into t!e merits we aKrm t!e ndings made $y t!e /+> t!at complainant engaged t!e services of respondent lawyer only for t!e preparation and s"$mission of t!e appellant-s $rief and t!e attorney-s fees was paya$le "pon t!e completion and s"$mission of t!e appellant-s $rief and not "pon t!e termination of t!e case. #!ere is s"Kcient evidence w!ic! indicates complainant-s willingness to pay t!e attorney-s fees. As agreed "pon complainant paid !alf of t!e fees in t!e amo"nt of >OG. "pon acceptance of t!e case. And w!ile t!e remaining $alance was not yet d"e as it was agreed to $e paid only "pon t!e completion and s"$mission of t!e $rief complainant nonet!eless delivered to respondent lawyer >. as t!e latter demanded. #!is notwit!standing Atty. 5ealca wit!drew !is appearance simply $eca"se of complainant-s fail"re to pay t!e remaining $alance of >*G. w!ic! does not appear to $e deli$erate. #!e sit"ation was aggravated $y respondent co"nsel-s note to complainant wit!drawing as co"nsel w!ic! was co"c!ed in impolite and ins"lting lang"age.Y1ZY1Z 3iven t!e a$ove circ"mstances was Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct ="st and proper @e nd Atty. 5ealca-s cond"ct "n$ecoming of a mem$er of t!e legal profession. Ender Canon 22 of t!e Code of >rofessional 4esponsi$ility lawyer s!all wit!draw !is services only for good ca"se and "pon notice appropriate in t!e circ"mstances. Alt!o"g! !e may wit!draw !is services w!en t!e client deli$erately fails to pay t!e fees for t!e servicesY1ZY11Z "nder t!e circ"mstances of t!e present case Atty. 5ealca-s wit!drawal was "n="stied as complainant did not deli$erately fail to pay !im t!e attorney-s fees. /n fact complainant e&erted !onest e,orts to f"lll !is o$ligation. 4espondent-s contempt"o"s cond"ct does not spea0 well of a mem$er of t!e $ar considering t!at t!e amo"nt owing to !im was only >*G.. 4"le 2. of Canon 2 mandates t!at a lawyer s!all avoid controversies wit! clients concerning !is compensation and s!all resort to ="dicial action only to prevent imposition in="stice or fra"d. %adly for not so large a s"m owed to !im $y complainant respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance wit! t!e demands of t!e Code. #!e Co"rt !owever does not agree wit! complainant-s contention t!at t!e
ma&im"m penalty of dis$arment s!o"ld $e imposed on respondent lawyer. #!e power to dis$ar m"st $e e&ercised wit! great ca"tion. nly in a clear case of miscond"ct t!at serio"sly a,ects t!e standing and c!aracter of t!e lawyer as an oKcer of t!e Co"rt and mem$er of t!e $ar will dis$arment $e imposed as a penalty. /t s!o"ld never $e decreed w!ere a lesser penalty s"c! as temporary s"spension wo"ld accomplis! t!e end desired.Y1ZY12Z /n t!e present case reprimand is deemed s"Kcient. @'4F4 in view of t!e foregoing respondent Atty. H"an %. 5ealca is 4>4/IA755 wit! a warning t!at repetition of t!e same act will $e dealt wit! more severely. % 4545. +A75 8. F/3E4A% 1 Han. 2 Facts :/n a civil case 5 led a motion to dismiss and t!is was granted. > claimed t!at t!emotion to dismiss is invalid since at t!e time of ling Atty. B no longer represented 5. /ss"e :@!et!er or not Atty. B ceased to $e 5-s co"nsel 'eld :7o. 4epresentation contin"es "ntil t!e co"rt dispenses wit! t!e services of co"nsel inaccordance wit! %ec. 2N 4"le 1*. Co"nsel may $e validly s"$stit"ted only if t!e followingre"isites are complied wit!: (1) new co"nsel les a written application for s"$stit"tionP (2) t!eclient-s written consent is o$tainedP and (*) t!e written consent of t!e lawyer to $e s"$stit"ted issec"red if it can still $eP if t!e written consent can no longer $e o$tained t!en t!e applicationfor s"$stit"tion m"st carry proof t!at notice of t!e motion !as $een served on t!e attorney to $es"$stit"ted in t!e manner re"ired $y t!e r"les. +A75 8. F/3E4A% 1 Han. 2 Facts :/n a civil case 5 led a Iotion to 5ismiss on t!e gro"nd t!at > lost !is capacity to s"ed"ring t!e pendency of t!e case. > assailed t!e motion saying t!at it was too late since > !adalready nis!ed presenting !is evidence. /ss"e
:@!et!er t!e motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e granted 'eld :Bes. #!e period to le a motion to dismiss depends "pon t!e circ"mstances of t!e case.%ec. 1 of 4"le 1N re"ires t!at in general a motion to dismiss s!o"ld $e led wit!in t!ereglementary period for ling a responsive pleading. +"t t!e co"rt allows a defendant to le amotion to dismiss on t!e ,. gro"nds: (1) lac0 of ="risdictionP (2) litis pendentiaP (*) lac0 of ca"seof actionP and () discovery d"ring trial of evidence t!at wo"ld constit"te a gro"nd for dismissal.
View more...
Comments
