Legal Ethics Digests

VIII. NATURE & CREATION OF ATTY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP REGALA VS SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Raul ROco and his colleagues from the ACCRA Law Office were charged together with Eduardo Cojuangco for acquiring ill-gotten wealth. The PCGG based its charge from the refusal of the law firm to divulge informations as to who had been involved in PCGG Case No. 0033, despite the nature of the services performed by AACRA (e.g. The law firm knows the assets, personal transactions, & business dealings of their clients). Later, the PCGG amedned the complaint, resulting in the exclusion of ROco from the list of defendants. Such exclusion was based from the manifestation of Roco that he would identify the persons & stockholders involved in the said PCGG case. The law firm petitioned for the PCGG to grant them the same treatment as what had been accorded to Roco. It was only at this point that the PCGG answered with a “set of requirements and conditions for exclusion” which were: 1) disclosure of the identity of the clients 2) Submission of documents purporting to the substantiation of the lawyer-client relationship 3) Presentation of the deeds of assignments which the lawyers executed in favor of its clients, covering the shareholdings of the latter To bolster this set-up, the PCGG presented supposed proof to the effect that Roco had complied with such conditions. The 1st Division of SB denied the petition of ACCRA. ISSUE: W/N SB did NOT uphold the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship. HELD: As a general rule, the identity of the client should not be shrouded with mystery, as a requirement of due process, EXCEPT when: A) revealing the name of a client would implicate the latter in the very activity for which he sought the advice of the layer B) The disclosure would expose the client to civil liability C) The content of the client communication is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance

The case of the prosecution must be built upon evidence gathered by them from their own sources, not from compelled testimony requiring them to reveal information prejudicial to their client. The confidentiality privilege extends even after the termination of the lawyer-client relationship.

DAROY VS. LEGASPI Facts: ♦ Fermina Daroy, Lydia Legaspi and Agripino Legaspi hired the RamonLegaspi in May, 1962 to represent them in the intestate proceeding for thesettlement of the estate of the spouses Aquilino Gonzaga and Paz Velez-Gonzaga. The complainants, together with their brother, Vivencio, who wasabroad, were adjudged as one of the six groups of heirs of the lateGonzaga spouses, their deceased mother, Consuelo Gonzaga-Legaspi,being a daughter of the spouses. ♦ April 11, 1969 – in a joint petition dated which Atty. Legaspi signed ascounsel for the complainants, agreed that the coconut land left by thedecedents would be divided into six equal parts, that the administrator beauthorized to sell the land, and that, after payment of the obligations of theestate, the net proceeds would be distributed among the six groups of heirs. ♦ The land was sold. Fermina Daroy came to know of the sale only when theAtty. Legaspi wrote a note dated November 28, 1969 to her father, TeofiloLegaspi, wherein he stated "that the money we have deposited may bewithdrawn on December 8, 1969 at 9:00 o'clock". Atty. Legaspi advisedTeofilo Legaspito see him on that date so that the money could bewithdrawn. Complainants were not able to withdraw the money. ♦ December 9, 1969 – Mrs. Daroy received a note wherein Atty. Legaspiinformed them that he used their money to solve his problems and that hewould pay the, as soon as he receives the proceeds of his jeep. ♦ Complainants made several demands for payment buy Atty. Legaspirepeatedly broke his promise and as such a complaint for his disbarmentwas filed. ♦ Version of Legaspi: O Teofilo Legaspi supposedly went to see him on October 21, 1969 andat their conference they supposedly agreed that the sum of P700 wouldbe deducted from the P4,000 to cover the expenses which hedescribed as "expenses involved from the parties litigants, expensesseeking evidence and other expenses relevant to the case" and "major expenses" in the case and that his attorney's fees would be equivalent"to a share of the petitioners", and that the balance of P3,300 would bedivided into six equal parts (six because of the four Legaspi children,the father Teofilo Legaspi and the lawyer Ramon C. Legaspi); thatunder such division each participant would receive P412 each (P3,300divided by six gives a quotient of P550 not P412), and that he gaveTeofilo the sum of P412. No receipt was presented. O First week of November 1969 Teofilo got from him the share of Vivencio. Money left with him amounted to P2,476. O According to Atty. Legaspi the complainants "refused consistently toreceive" the said balance from him because they wanted the fullamount of P4,000. He said that he had already paid to them the sum of P2,000 and that only the sum of P476 was left in his custody. He didnot present any receipt to prove the alleged payment of P2,000. Hesaid that he could deliver that amount of P476 to the complainants. ♦ Mrs. Daroy stated that there was no agreement that Atty. Legaspi wouldparticipate like an heir in the partition.WON Atty. Legaspi paid the money to Teofilo Legaspi? NONote of Atty. Legaspi to Mrs. Daroy dated December 9, 1969, overwhelminglybelie his fabricated theory that he conferred with Teofilo Legaspi at the end of October or in the first week of November, 1969. He was tempted to concoct astory as to his alleged payments to Teofilo Legaspi because the

latter is deadand could not refute him. However, complainants' documentary evidence refuteshis prevarications, distortions and fabrications.

Issue: What is to become of Atty. Madianda?

Issue: WON Atty. Legaspi is guilty of malpractice? YES

The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Atty. Madianda should have kept the information secret and confidential, under the attorney-client privilege rule.

♦ Carbon copy of a supposed extrajudicial partition executed in 1968 by thefour children of Consuelo Gonzaga, by her surviving husband, TeofiloLegaspi and by the respondent, Atty. Legaspi, all the six being described inthe document as "the legitimate children and sole heirs of ConsueloGonzaga, who died on March 12. 1941". Atty. Legaspi is not a legitimateheir and he did not explain why he is referred to as one. The documentcasts a reflection on his competency and integrity as a lawyer and on thecompetency and integrity of the notary before whom it was acknowledged.It was made to appear herein that respondent Legaspi was an heir of Consuelo Gonzaga when, obviously, he did not possess that status. ♦ A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients.He is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has comeinto his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. He shouldmaintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust. ♦ Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of hisclients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them ♦ Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that when an attorneyunjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded,he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who hasmisbehaved in his official transactions and he is liable to a criminalprosecution. ♦ A member of the bar who converts the money of his client to his own benefitthrough false pretenses is guilty of deceit, malpractice and grossmisconduct in his office of lawyer. The attorney, who violates his oath of office, betrays the confidence reposed in him by a client and practicesdeceit cannot be permitted to continue as a law practitioner. Not alone hashe degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession ♦ Sturr vs. State Bar of California: The conversion of funds entrusted to anattorney is a gross violation of general morality as well as professionaL ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession, "It deservessevere punishment" Holding: Atty. Legaspi is disbarred.

HADJULA V. ATTY MADIANDA

Facts: Hadjula claimed that she asked legal advice from her friend, Atty. Madianda. She disclosed confidential information during that period. However, after the confidential information was given by Hadjula, Atty. Madianda referred her to another lawyer. Hadjula filed a complaint against Atty. Madianda because of this, claiming the lawyer just wanted to hear her secrets. In answering the complaint, Atty. Madianda filed a counter complaint against Hadjula for falsification of public documents and immorality – using the disclosures as basis for the charges.

Held: Reprimanded.

However, the seriousness of the respondent’s offense notwithstanding, the Court feels that there is room for compassion, absent compelling evidence that she (Atty. Madianda) acted with ill-will. It appears that she was actuated by the urge to retaliate without perhaps realizing that in the process of giving bent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule of confidentiality.

WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES A.C. No. 5280 : March 30, 2004 FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court. When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant’s office demanding a certain amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public Documents. The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have filed. Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant; that there was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds. The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and recommended for his suspension for 6 months. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR? HELD: No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.

Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests. PETITION DISMISSED for lack of merit.