Ethics Bar Ops

A.C. No. 10164

March 10, 2014

STEPHAN BRUNET and vs. ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent

VIRGINIA

ROMANILLOS

BRUNET,  Complainants,

FACTS: This is in regard to availing the services of the said Atty. Guaren for the titling of the residential lot they acquired, Atty. Guaren accepted the case for a fee of 10,000.00 including expenses relative to the proceedings. He advanced 1000.00 which the spouses dutifully gave, then asked for another 6,000.00. Also the spouses provided the documents needed pertaining to the titling of the land. The complainants constantly reminded the respondent, but the latter tells them that it’s already in progress. Because of the slow progress the spouses became bothered so they demanded the return of the money they paid, Atty. Guaren agreed provided that the amount of 5,000.00 be deducted for his professional fees

Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship between them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC). Issue: WON the respondent violated Rule 12.03, Canon 12, Canon 17, Rule 18.03, and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: YES, The Supreme Court reiterated reiterated that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration administration of  justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves. In this case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000 as partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. Thus, Atty. Guaren violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.

A.C. No. 9116

March 12, 2014

NESTOR B. FIGUERAS and vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ,  Respondent.

BIENVENIDO

VICTORIA,

JR.,  Complainants,

FACTS: Complainants who are members of the Congressional Village Homeowner’s Association, Inc. filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Jimenez for violating Rule 12.03, Canon 12, Canon 17, Rule 18.03, and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his negligence in handling an appeal in a case involving the Association and willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court. Respondent’s allegation that the complainants does not have the personality to file a case against him since

they were not his client and the suit his instituted to harass him. Also during the handling of the case by a  junior associate, when the respondent found out the omissions committed he personally took charge of the case expenses came from his personal fund, thus does not constitute negligence on his par t. ISSUE: WON the complainants have the personality to institute a disbarment case a gainst the respondent HELD: YES, The Supreme Court held that the complainants have personality to file the disbarment case. In Heck v.  Judge Santos, the Court held that “[a]ny interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings.” The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Further, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, Atty. Jimenez had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. However, the Supreme Court only suspended Atty. Jimenez from the practice of law for one month

A.C. No. 5359

March 10, 2014

ERMELINDA LAD VOA. DE DOMINGUEZ, represented PICHON,Complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR.,  Respondent.

by

her

Attorney-in-Fact,

VICENTE

A.

FACTS: Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez (complainant) was the widow of the late Felipe Domiguez who died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck owned by the Municipality of Caraga. Aggrieved, complainant decided to file charges against the Municipality of Caraga and engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. (Atty. Agleron). On three (3) occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and received from complainant the following amounts for the payment of filing fees and sheriffs fees, to wit: (1) June 3, 1996 -P3,000.00; (2) June 7, 1996 -Pl,800.00; and September 2, 1996 - P5,250.00 or a total of P10,050.00. After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no complaint was filed by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of Caraga. Atty. Agleron was charged with violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. The Supreme Court held that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. ISSUE: WON the respondent violated Canon 18.03 of the CPR

HELD: YES, In this case, Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the complaint despite the fact that it was already prepared and signed. He attributed his non-filing of the appropriate charges on the failure of complainant to remit the full payment of the fil ing fee and pay the 30% of the attorney’s fee. Such justification, however, is not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability. As stated, every case that is entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full attention whether he accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that complainant had not remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should have found a way to speak to his client and inform him about the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the complaint. Atty. Agleron obviously lacked professionalism in dealing with complainant and showed incompetence when he failed to file the appropriate charges. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence renders him liable for disciplinary action such as suspension ranging from three months to two years. In this case, Atty. Agleron was suspended from the practice of law three month.

A.C. No. 10185

March 12, 2014

LICERIO DIZON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS: A petition for disbarment was filed against Atty. Cabucana, Jr. for falsification of public document. Complainant alleged that he was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed Callangan who were parties in Civil Case No. 1-689 filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Santiago City (MTCC); that on November 6, 2003, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in the said case and notarized before Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that because of the irregularity in the due execution of the Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused damage and injury to complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be s anctioned in accordance with Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats against him on July 20, 2004 after the hearing of the said case in MTCC. ISSUE: WON the respondent violated the Notarial Law Sec. 2 (b) HELD: YES, The requirement of personal appearance of the affiant is required under the Notarial Law and Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. The Supreme Court held that as a notary public, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowle dging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free and voluntary act and deed. Thus, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. was found violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended from the practice of law for three months. His notarial commission was revoked and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.