Legal ethics digests

RIZALINO FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. REYNALDO NOVERO, JR.Mendoza, J: Facts:  Rizalino Fernandez and others filed a disbarment case against Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr. for alleged patentand gross neglect in the handling of their civil case against the Bacolod City Water istrict.!he complainant imp"ted that the respondent did not attend the sched"led hearing nor see# apostponement, for $hich reason the trial co"rt considered respondent to have $aived f"rther presentation of hisevidence and directed him to formally offer his e%hibits. &o$ever, respondent failed to formally offer his e%hibits,prompting the trial co"rt to order the dismissal of the case. !he respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of theorder of dismissal ho$ever he did not file his motion $ithin the reglementary period. &e even tried to shift the blameon complainant by claiming that the latter insisted on presenting his sister from 'anila as their last $itness. !he tr"th$as that complainant(s sister had already testified.!he respondent s"bmitted his Ans$er and averred that the complaint filed against him $as baseless, p"relymalicio"s and spec"lative considering the fact that it $as not made "nder oath. &e contended that complainantengaged his legal services after the first co"nsel had $ithdra$n and he had no #no$ledge of $hat had happened inthe case before he handled it beca"se complainant did not f"rnish him $ith the records and stenographic notes of theprevio"s proceedings despite his repeated re)"ests. &e alleged that he failed to formally offer the e%hibits beca"secomplainant tried to ta#e over the handling of the case by insisting on presenting more $itnesses $ho failed toappear d"ring trial.!he *ffice of the Bar Confidant s"bmitted a report finding respondent g"ilty of  violat violation ion of the Code Code of +rofes +rofessio sional nal Respons Responsibi ibility lity and recomm recommendi ending ng his s"spens s"spension ion.!h .!he e ntegr ntegrated ated Bar of the +hilippines also s"bmitted a report and recommendation for the s"spension of respondent from the practice of la$ for a period of si% -/ months. Issue: Whether or not respondent is g"ilty of gross neglect in the handling of the civil case0 Hed:  !he 1"preme Co"rt held that a co"nsel m"st constantly #eep in mind that his actions or omissions, evenmalfeasance or  nonfeasance $o"ld be binding on his client. A la$yer o$es to the client the e%ercise of "tmostpr"dence and capability in that representation.!he respondent(s attempt to evade responsibility by shifting the blame on complainant d"e to the latter latter(sf (sfail ail"re "re to t"rn t"rn over over to him record records s and stenog stenograp raphic hic notes notes of the case case only only highli highlights ghts his incomp incompete etence nce andinade)"acy in handling the complainant(s case.!he respondent Atty. Novero is fo"nd g"ilty of neglect of his client(s case and is 1"spended from thepractice of la$ for one -2/ month $ith Warning that repetition of the same negligent act $ill be dealt $ith even moreseverely

!"# ROLLON v NAVALFA$T% 

R*33*N, together $ith her 1*N, $ent to the office of A!!4 NARA5A3 to see# his assistance in a case filed againsther -Collection of 1"m of 'oney/  Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, 6ana3opez, 'endiola, 'orada, Rivas, 1arenas 7C

386A3 8!&C1 7 nd 1em 799:;799 

 After going thro"gh the doc"ments, A!!4 A!!4 NARA5 NARA5A3 agreed to be R*33*N 

 Jose Na#pil $as interested in a piece of property sit"ated in 'oran, Bag"io. &e $ent into an agreement $ith Atty.Carlos 5aldes for the latter to b"y the property in tr"st for Na#pil. 

5aldes did b"y the property by contracting 7 loans. !he lands< titles $ere transferred to his name. 

When Jose Na#pil died, melda Na#pil -his $ife/ ac)"ired the services of 5aldes and his acco"nting and la$ firmsfor the settlement of the estate of Jose Na#pil.



What 5aldes did $as to e%cl"de the property in Bag"io from the list of assets of Jose Na#pil -he act"allytransferred the property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation/ $hile incl"ding the loans he contracted. 

What melda did $as to file a s"it for reconveyance in the CF. While the case $as pending, melda also filed anadministrative complaint for disbarment against 5aldes. 

 !he CF dismissed the action for reconveyance. !he CA reversed the CF. 

 !he complaint for reconveyance $ent "p to the 1C and $as decided in favor of Na#pil. !he 1C held that 5aldesonly held the lots in tr"st for Na#pil.ss"e> 

W?n Atty. 5aldes sho"ld be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely> o

8%cl"ding the property in Bag"io from the estate of Jose Na#pilD o

ncl"ding his loans as claims on the estateD and o

 Apparently, representing conflicting interests $hen his acco"nting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Na#pil and 8N*RN against the estate of Jose Na#pil, $hich $as represented by his la$firm.&eld> 

 !he 1C fo"nd 5aldes g"ilty of miscond"ct and s"spends him for 2 year. 

 !he Co"rt held that the first t$o acts clearly sho$ that 5aldes bro#e the tr"st reposed on him by melda Na#pil$hen the latter agreed to "se his professional services as a la$yer and an acco"ntant. t $as clear  that JoseNa#pil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter $o"ld be b"ying the property in tr"st for  Jose. By his act of e%cl"ding the property from the estate and incl"ding the loans he contracted -and "sed for his o$n benefit/ asclaims, 5aldes too# for granted the tr"st formed bet$een Jose and him -they had a close relationship since the:9 Rue !=."!.  A la$yer shall employ only f a i r a n d h o n e s t m e a n s t o a t t a i n t h e l a $ f " l o b e ct iv e s o f h is client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to p re sen t " n f o " n d e d c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s t o o b t a i n a n improper advantage in any case or proceeding.K G W*N it is proper to disbar Aparicio0 NO,3e735and on6Hed: G @ n d e r C a n o n 2  , a l a $ y e r s h o " l d n o t f i l e o r threaten to file any "nfo"nded or baseless criminalcase or cases against the adversaries of his clientd e s i g n e d t o s e c " r e l e v e r a g e t o c o m p e l t h e a d v e r s a r i e s t o y i e l d o r $i th d ra $ th e ir o$ n ca se sagainst the la$yerEs client. G n the case at bar, the threats are not only" n e t h i c a l f o r v i o l a t i n g C a n o n 2  , b " t t h e y a l s o amo"nt to 9ac>a5 . Blac#mail is Kthe e%tortion of mo ne y fr om a pe rs on by th re at s of ac c" sa ti on o r e % p o s " r e o r o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e p " b l i c p r i n t s , L ob ta in in g o f va l" e fro m a p erso n as a co ndi tio n of refraining from ma#ing an acc"sation against him, or dis clo sin g som e sec ret calc"lated to operate to his pre"dice.K !he letter in this case contains more than "st a simple demand to pay. t even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant$hich hav e not hin g to do $ith his cli en tEs claim for sep ara tion pay.  nde ed, lett ers of t his nat" re are definitely proscribed by the Code of +rofessionalResponsibility. G

t $as not respondentEs intention to pointo"t comp lain ant Es viol ati ons of the l a $ a s h e s o gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even containsan implied promise to ?>ee7 s5ent? abo"t the saidviolations if payment of the claim is made on thedate indicated. G DE$I%ION: While the $riting of the letter $ e n t b e y o n d e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s , $ e h o l d t h a t disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he $rote the same o"to f h i s o v e r z e a l o " s n e s s t o p r o t e c t h i s c l i e n t E s interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penaltyis 3e735and.