LEGAL ETHICS

CASE DIGESTS Canon 14-17

1. LEMOINE v BALON
FACTS:
Lemoine is a French national who filed an insurance claim with Metropolitan
Insurance.His friend Jesus Garcia arranged for the engagement of Balons services
as his counsel Balon advised Lemoine that he was charging 25% of the actual
amount to being recovered payable upon successful recovery. An advance
payment of P50,000 to be deducted from whatever amount would be successfully
collected. P1,000 as appearance and conference fee for each and every court
hearing and legal expenses and other miscellaneous will be charged to Lemoines
account which would be reimbursed upon presentment of account. Lemoine never
gave his consent as to the fee.
Lemoine signed an undated Special Power of Attorney authorizing Balon to
bring any action against Metropolitan Insurance for the satisfaction of Lemoines
claim as well as to negotiate, sign, compromise, encash and receive payments
Metropolitan Insurance offered to settle Lemoines claim and Balon confirmed his
acceptance of the offer December 1998, Metropolitan Insurance issued a China
Bank check payable to Lemoine in the amount of P525,000 which was received by
Balon.
When Lemoine asked Balon as to the status of the case, Balon answered
that Metropolitan Insurance was offering P350,000 for settlement which Lemoine
suggested that Balon accept to avoid litigation.
December 1999, Lemoine visited the office of Metropolitan Insurance to ask
on the status of the case and it answered that the case was long settled via a
check given to Balon.
Balon acknowledge that he is in possession of the check and that he is
keeping the check as attorneys lien pending Lemoines payment of his attorneys
fee equivalent to 50% of the entire amount collected. He also threatened Lemoine
that he will not hesitate to make proper representation with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation, DOLE and BIR if Lemoine will make any trouble to
Balon and that he has good network with the mentioned agencies.
Balon later claimed that he gave P233,000 to Garcia on the representation
of Lemoine. No written memorandum of the turn-over was made because Garcia
was a co-Rotarian and co-attorney of Balon.
Balon was in possession of the said check for 5 years
ISSUE:
W/N Balon violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:
YES! And he was ordered disbarred by the SC
The lawyers continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the
client agrees with the amount of attorneys fees to e charged. In case of
disagreement, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds in his
possession to the payment of his fees. He can file the necessary action with the
proper court to fix the fees
Before receiving the check, he proposes a 25% attorneys fees, after
receiving the check, he was already asking for 50%.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful acts , must observe fairness.

2. ARTEZUELA v MADERAZO
FACTS:
Echavia had a vehicular accident in Mandaue City. Echavia was driving a
Ford Telstar owned by a Japanese national but in the name of his brother-in-law
Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela.
Artezuela engaged the services of Atty. Maderazo in filing a damage suit
against Echavia. Artezuela paid Maderazo the amount of P10,000 as attorneys
fees and P2,000 as filing fee.
Artezuela filed a suit for disbarment against Maderazo. She alleged that
Maderazo grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer. According to Artezuela, atty.
did not do anything to keep the case moving and atty. withdrew his services
without obtaining Artezuelas consent. Artezuela also alleged that Atty. Maderazo
engaged in activities inimical to her interests. She says that while acting as her
counsel, Atty. Maderazo prepared Echavias answer. Atty. Maderazo claims that the
document of Echavia was not prepared by him. According to him, the answer by
Echavia was only printed in his office.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests.
HELD:
Atty. Maderazo represented conflicting interests. Suspension of 6 months.
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one
party need not also be the counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not
have to hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. It is enough that the
counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of another
party who is claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of the original

client.
Because of the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client,
sound public policy dictates that the lawyer be prohibited from representing
conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties.
3. PNB v ATTY CEDO
FACTS:
PNB filed a complaint against Atty. Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that
states: A lawyer shall not, after leaving govt. service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter which he had intervened with in said
service. Cedo was the former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset management
Group of PNB.
During Cedos stint with PNB, he became involved in 2 transactions: 1.) sale
of steel sheets to Ms. Ong and 2.) intervened in the handling of a loan of spouses
Almeda. When a civil action arose because of #1, Cedo, after leaving the bank
appeared as one of the counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2 was involved in a civil
action, the Almedas were represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &
Associates of which Cedo was a Senior Partner. Cedo claims that he did not
participate in the litigation of Ms. Ongs case. He also claims that even if it was his
law firm handling the Almeda case, the case was being handled by Atty. Ferrer.
ISSUE: W/N violated Rule 6.02.
HELD:
Cedo violated Rule 6.02.
In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between the atty.
and the client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in
advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the
complainant cause. Whatever may be said as to w/n the atty. utilized against his
former client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact
that their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as
counsel for the other side.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express
consent of all the parties concerned after the disclosure of facts. A lawyer
represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
4. JUNIO v GRUPO
FACTS:
Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the
redemption of a land belonging to her parents. She gave P25,000 to be used in

the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property and has continuously
refused to refund the money given.
Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct
Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore,
and that since Junio knew that the mortgage has already expired, she knew that it
was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Atty. Grupo then borrowed
some of the money for himself to help defray his childrens educational expenses.
(personal request evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio Atty. Grupo
contends that their families were really very close and intimate with each other
Junios sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo)
Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further
contends that he did not ask for any fee, not even charity. He claims that his
services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he claims that he is willing to pay,
though)
IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing
money from their clients unless the clients interests are protected by the nature
of the case or by independent advice and suspended him
5. REGALA v SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Petitioners in this case and private respondent Roco were all then partners of the
law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz Law Offices (commonly
known as ACCRA)
ACCRA performed services for clients which included acquiring and/or organizing
business associations and/or organizations where it acted as incorporators or
simply as stockholders
As members of the law firm, petitioners and Roco admit that they assisted in the
organization and acquisition of companies included in Civil Case No. 0033. In
keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees- stockholders.
Anong kalokohan yan?
o Civil Case No. 0033 RP v. Eduardo Cojuangco et. al., for the recovery of illgotten wealth, which includes shares of stock in certain corporations
PCGG later on filed a motion to admit 3rd amended complaint, which excluded
Roco in Civil Case 33 as party defendant. PCGG was removing Roco because Roco
was going to make choochoo and reveal the identity of the principals.
The ACCRA lawyers then filed a comment and/or opposition saying that they
should also be removed the way that Roco was.
PCGG then said that it will ask for their exclusion only if they will also disclose the
identity of their clients
During the proceedings, Roco did not actually reveal the identity of the client for

whom he acted as nominee- stockholder

The ACCRA lawyers motion for exclusion was denied (they refused to comply
with the PCGGs offer) by the PCGG and the court. Hence, this motion for certiorari
ISSUE:
W/N the ACCRA lawyers should be excluded from the case
HELD:
Yes. It is apparent that the ACCRA lawyers were only impleaded to force them to
disclose the identity of their clients.
PCGG has no valid cause of action
ISSUE:
W/N the attorney-client privilege prohibits the ACCRA lawyers from revealing the
identity of their clients
HELD:
General rule: a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery
o Exceptions: where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients name
would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers
advice
o Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability
o Where revealing the identity would furnish the only link that would be necessary
to convict an individual of a crime
Suing the lawyer to force him to disclose the identity of his client in any of these
instances is improper and the suit, upon motion, may be dismissed on such
ground.
The prosecution should rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the
weakness of the defense
Roco merely stated that he was acting as nominee-stockholder for the client and
is part of legitimate lawyering.
The ACCRA lawyers also made such statement and should also be dropped.
the relation of attorney and client is strictly personal and highly confidential and
fiduciary
the lawyer is more than a mere agent or servant because he possesses special
powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client