Maglasang vs People GR No.docx

1. Maglasang vs People GR No. 90083 Facts: A petition for certiorari entitled Maglasang vs. People was filed with the Court. Due to non-compliance with the requirements of the Court, specifically the non- payment legal fees and the non-attachment of the copies of the questioned decision, the Court dismissed the petition. Atty. Castellano, as counsel of the petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing dismissing the petition. However, the motion for reconsideration was denied "with FINALITY." 4

Thereafter, the Court received from Atty. Castellano a copy of a complaint filed with the Office of the President whereby Maglasang, through his lawyer, Atty. Castellano, as complainant, accused all the five Justices of the Court's Second Division with "biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution. By reason of the strong language of the complaint and its improper filing with the Office of the President, Atty. Castellano was required to show show cause why he should not be punished for contempt or administratively dealt with for improper conduct. Atty. Castellano claimed that the complaint "was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the Justices concerned, as Respondents. Issue: Whether Atty. Castellano should be punished for contempt Held: Yes, notwithstanding his claim that the complaint was a "constructive criticism," the Court finds the various statements made by Atty. Castellano in the complaint scurrilous and contumacious. It went beyond the bounds of "constructive criticism." They are not relevant to the cause of his client. On the contrary, they cast aspersion on the Court's integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies brought before it. Atty. Castellano should know that the Court in resolving complaints yields only to the records before it and not to any extraneous influence as he disparagingly intimates. To be sure, the Court does not pretend to be immune from criticisms. After all, it is composed of fallible mortals, hopes to correct whatever mistake it may have unwittingly committed. But then again, it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide  and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. 2. Lantoria vs Atty. Bunyi AM No. 1769 Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, seeking disciplinary action against respondent Irineo L. Bunyi on the ground that he allegedly committed acts of unbecoming of a member

of the Bar and corruption of the judge and bribery in connection with respondent's handling of Civil Case pending before the Municipal Court of Experanza, Agusan del Sur, presided over by Judge Galicia. Atty. Bunyi won the civil case because he was the one who unethically prepared the decisions rendered therein, and that the preparation by respondent of said decisions warranted disciplinary action against him. Respondent contends that it was due to the insistence of the Complainant thru his several letters received, that the decisions in question be drafted or prepared for Judge Galicia, who considered such preparation as a big help to him, because he was at that time holding two (2) with many pending cases and it was to the benefit of the Complainant that the early disposition of the cases involved would not suffer inconsiderable delay and the decisions as prepared were in the form of drafts, as in fact, the letter mentioned subject to suggestion or correction to change or modify for the better by Judge Galicia. Issue: Whether Atty. Bunyi violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: Yes, respondent clearly violated Canon 13 which provides “A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his

cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court”. Respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the

draft decisions in the Civil Case which he in fact prepared. Although nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court judge's consent to the said preparation for a favor or consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the Court. 3. Madria vs Atty. Rivera Facts: Complainant consulted the respondent in his law office to inquire about the process of annulling her marriage with her husband. After giving the details of her marriage and other facts relevant to the annulment, the respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for her the decree of annulment. In April 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino of the RTC in Tuguegarao City. Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of her passport. However, she became the object of an investigation by the NBI because her former partner filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the court records and the signature of the  judge is a forgery. In his answer, respondent averred that she had insisted that he should prepare the draft of her petition that she could show to her foreigner fiance; that she had also prevailed upon him to simulate the court decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of finality; that she had assured him that such simulated documents would be ke pt strictly confidential.

Issue: Whether Atty Rivera should be disbarred in the practice of law. Held: Yes, The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon the complainant's persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the explanation is unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent's case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar. A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client and must be disbarred to maintain the integrity of the Law Profession. 4. Gimena vs Atty Sabio AC 7178 Facts: Complaint for Disbarment was filed by Vicente M. Gimena Gime na against Atty. Salvador T. Sabio for gross negligence in handling their case. Complainant laments that his company, Simon Peter Equipment and Construction Systems, Inc. lost in the case because respondent filed an unsigned position paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing him to sign the pleading. Aware of the unfavorable decision, respondent did not even bother to inform complainant of the same. The adverse decision became fomal and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to file a timely appeal. Respondent countered that complainant engaged his services in 2000. Complainant, however, did not pay the expenses and attorney's fees for the preparation and filing of the position paper in the amount of P20,000.00. The lack of payment contributed to respondent's oversight in the filing of the unsigned position paper. When the case was referred to the IBP, respondent raised for the first time the issue of lack of attorney-client relationship. He pointed out that he and complainant had never met each other and that there was no formal fo rmal engagement of his services. Issue: Whether there was attorney-client relationship between respondent and the company in this case Held: Yes, The contention of respondent that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and the company is, at best, flimsy. It is improper for him to capitalize on the fact that no formal contract for legal retainer was signed by the parties, for formality is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney. The contract may be express or implied and it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of

the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession. An attorney impliedly accepts the relation when he acts on behalf of his client in pursuance of the request made by the latter. Respondent acted on behalf of the company and the complainant in relation to the case. Albeit unsigned, he allowed his name to appear as "counsel for respondent" in the position paper that he filed before the labor arbiter. He never called the attention of the labor court that he was not the counsel of the company. More importantly, he admitted in his Comment that the complainant engaged his legal services. Respondent cannot plead the same then later on deny it before the IBP to save him from his omissions. Estoppel works against him. 5. Arthur Tulio vs. Atty. Gregory Buhangin, AC 7110 Facts: Tulio sought the legal advice of Atty. Buhangin concerning a property owned by his mother which was then

transferred

in

the

names

of

third

parties.

By virtue of Tulio's agreement with his siblings, Atty. Buhangin prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights which was signed by all of his siblings in his favor. Thereafter, Tulio engaged the services of Atty. Buhangin to represent him in filing a civil case for specific performance and damages against  Heirs of Patacsil, before the RTC of Baguio City. Through his e fforts, Tulio claims that he and the defendants in

the Civil Case agreed to a settlement. However, to Tulio's surprise, Atty. Buhangin represented his siblings and filed a complaint against him over legal matters for rescission of the deed of waiver of rights which he himself prepared and notarized. Thereafter, Tulio filed a complaint disbarment disbarment against Atty. Buhangin. He alleged alleged that there was conflict of interest in order to serve his own personal interests against his interests as his client. In his defense, Atty Buhangin asserted that his legal representation was neither personal nor directed in favor of complainant Tulio alone but instead in the latter's capacity as an heir of Angeline Tulio. Atty. Buhangin disputed Tulio's claim that the latter personally engaged his services as legal counsel and insisted that his legal representation was made for and in behalf of the heirs of Angeline Tulio. Issue: WON Attorney client relationship exist between A tty. Buhangin and Tulio. Held: Yes, Atty. Atty. Buhangin's allegation that he represents for and in behalf of the Heirs of Angeline Tulio and not personal or exclusive to complainant cannot be given any credence. First , Atty. Buhangin himself admitted that he was withdrawing his appearance in the Civil case against Tulio due to conflict of interest. Secondly , it cannot be denied that there was an exclusive attorney-client relationship between Tulio and Atty. Buhangin as evidenced by the demand letters which Atty. Buhangin prepared specifically as counsel of Tulio. Thirdly , as correctly observed by the IBP, other than his bare assertion that he was representing the estate and the Heirs of Angeline Tulio, Atty. Buhangin failed to satisfactorily show any circumstance that he was actually represe nting the Heirs of Angeline Tulio and not solely for Tulio.

There is no question that Atty. Buhangin took an inconsistent position when he filed Civil Case against Tulio whom he has defended and protected as client in the past. Even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if he has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests, it is still in violation of the rule o f conflict of interest. 6. Paces Industrial Corp vs Atty. Salandanan

Facts: Salandanan became a stockholder of Paces, and later became its officer, then its counsel. As lawyer for Paces, he appeared for it in several cases, however, in one case Salandanan failed to file the file an answer. As a result, an order of default was issued against Paces. Subsequently, a decision was rendered against

Paces

which

later

became

final

and

executory.

Thereafter, E.E. Black Ltd., through its counsel, sent a letter to Paces regarding the latter's outstanding obligation to it. In the negotiations that transpired thereafter, Salandanan was the one who represented Paces. He was likewise entrusted with the documents relative to the agreement between Paces and E.E. Black Ltd. Meanwhile, disagreements on various management policies ensued among the stockholders and officers in the corporation. Eventually, Salandanan and his group were forced to sell out their shareholdings in the company. After said sell-out, Salandanan started handling the case between E.E. Black Ltd. and Paces, but now, representing E.E. Black Ltd. Salandanan then filed a complaint with application for preliminary attachment against Paces for the collect ion of its obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. Thus, Paces filed a complaint against Salandanan. It argued that when he acted as counsel for E.E. Black Ltd., he represented conflicting interests and utilized all the information he had acquired as its stockholder, officer, and lawyer. On the other hand, Salandanan claimed that he was never employed nor paid as a counsel by Paces. There was no client-lawyer contract between them. He added that whatever knowledge or information he had obtained on the operation of Paces only took place in the regular, routinary course of business as him being an investor, stockholder, and officer, but never as a lawyer of the company. Issue: WON there is conflict of interest between Atty Salandanan and Paces. Held: Yes, Conflict of interest exists when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will

require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of said duty. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. Here, contrary to Salandanan's futile defense, he sufficiently represented or intervened for Paces in its negotiations for the payment of its obligation to E.E. Black Ltd. The letters he sent to the counsel of E.E. Black Ltd. identified him as the Treasurer of Paces. It is clear, therefore, that his duty had been to fight a cause for Paces, but it later became his duty to oppose the same for E.E. Black Ltd. His defense for Paces was eventually opposed by him when he argued for E.E. Black Ltd. Thus, Salandanan had indisputably obtained knowledge of matters affecting the rights and obligations of Paces which had been placed in him in unrestricted confidence. 7. Abragan vs Rodriguez AC No. 4346 Facts: Sometime in 1986, complainants hired the services of the respondent to represent in acase for Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages beforethe MTCC of Cagayan de Oro City. The case was won by the complainants. After the case wasfinally won, and a Writ of Execution was issued by the Honorable Municipal Trial Court inCities of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3, the same respondent lawyer represented the petitioners.But when respondent counsel disturbed the association (Cagayan de Oro Landless ResidentsAssociation, Inc.), to which all the complainants belong, by surreptitiously selling some rights toother persons without the consent of the petitioners herein, they decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship.On August 1991, complainants filed a case of indirect contempt against Sheriff FernandoLoncion et al. Much to their surprise, respondent represented the sheriff. Since the counselemployed by

the

complainants

was

a

former

student

of

responden t,

said

counsel,

by

thesuggestions of respondent withdrew the case without the petitioner’s   consent. That as a result ofsuch withdrawal, subsequent events occurred that damage and prejudice of the herein petitioners Issue: WON violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional responsibility Held: Yes, respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional P rofessional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. As a rule  A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend  for that which which duty to another client requires him to to oppose.

The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed

In the case at bar, petitioners were the same complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No. 11204. 11204 .[10] Respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the indirect contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times. 8. Pormento Sr. vs Atty. Pontevedra Facts: Complainant alleges that respondent is his familys legal counsel having represented him and members of his family in all legal proceedings in which they are involved. The rift between complainant and respondent began when complainants counterclaim in Civil Case filed with the RTC of Bacolod was dismissed. Complainant claims that respondent, who was his lawyer in the said case, deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim despite receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of which, complainant was deprived of his right to appeal said order. Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and interests over the said parcel of land, he was forced to initiate a criminal case for qualified theft against the relatives of the alleged new owner of the said land. Respondent is the counsel of the accused in said case. Complainant claims that as part of his defense in said criminal case, respondent utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from complainant while the latter is still his client. In a separate incident, complainant claims that he bought a parcel of land located at Escalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed was prepared and notarized by respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership of the property, complainant alleges that he heeded respondents advice to build a small house on the property and to allow his nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for complainant to establish his possession of the said property. Subsequently, complainants nephew refused to vacate the property prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the MTC of Escalante, Negros Occidental. Respondent acted as the counsel of complainants nephew. In his defense, respondent argues that he honestly believes that there exists no conflict between his present and former clients interests as the cases he handled for these clients are separate and distinct from each other. Issue: Whether conflict of interest exist in this case. Held: Yes, as a rule, A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any

matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired t hrough their connection. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict of interests. Where, however, the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyers new client and his former client is in some way connected with that of the former clients action, the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against the latter information confided to him as his counsel The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his clients case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the clients secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. Here, we find no conflict of interests when respondent represented herein complainants nephew and other members of his family in the ejectment case and in the criminal complaint filed by herein complainant against them. The only established participation respondent had with respect to the parcel of land purchased by complainant, is that he was the one who notarized the deed of sale of the said land. On that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow that respondent obtained any information from herein complainant that can be used to the detriment of the latter in the ejectment case he filed. However, we find conflict of interests in respondents representation of herein complainant in Civil Case No. 1648 and his subsequent employment as counsel of the accused in Criminal Case for theft.

The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648 is Lot 609 located at Escalante, Negros Occidental, the same parcel of land involved in Criminal Case No. 3159 filed by herein complainant against several persons, accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing coconut trees within the premises of the said lot. Complainant contends that it is in this criminal case that respondent used confidential information which the latter obtained from the former in Civil Case No. 1648. It cannot be denied that when respondent was the counsel of complainant in Civil Case No. 1648, he became privy to the documents and information that complainant possessed with respect to the said parcel of land. Hence, whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against complainant any information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the o pposing side