Canon 18 Competence

EDQUIBAL v FERRER AC 5687, February 3, 2005

FACTS
Plaintiff engaged the services of Ferrer to assist his mother Ursula in cases she filed against his
sister Delia involving a certain property. In one of the cases, the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to
his mother. Atty Ferrer then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that the cost
involved is P4,000. When Edquibal informed respondent that he does not have enough money, Atty
Ferrer said P2,000 is sufficient.
Edquibal followed up the appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for
failure to file the required appellants brief.
Respondent Atty Ferrer denied that he filed an appeal. He claimed that he never agreed to handle
the appeal.
ISSUE
WON Atty Ferrer is guilty of professional misconduct
HELD
Yes. Records show that respondent was the counsel of record for Edquibal. The resolution of the
Court of Appeals clearly states that the notice sent to counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to
file appellants brief within 45 days from receipt thereof , was received by him. However, respondent
failed to file the appellants brief despite receipt of notice.
If it were true that Ferrer did not agree to represent the Edquibals, why did he not file with the CA
the motion to withdraw as counsel? The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence. All that is
required is ordinary diligence expected of a bonus pater familias.
Respondent is suspended for three (3) months.
Note:
Respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It bears
stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the
client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be
left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the
lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general. Respondent violated Canons 17 and
18 of the CPR which provide:
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to his clients request for information.

Canon 21 - Preserve Clients Confidence

BUN SIONG YAO v. ATTY. AURELIO AC 7023 March 30, 2006
FACTS
Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporations and Solar
Textile Finishing Corporation. Since 1987, he retained the services of another stockholder, Atty. Leonardo
Aurelio as his personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a
disagreement. Aurelio then filed cases against Yao and his wife.
Yao alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his wife constitute an abuse of the
confidential information which Aurelio obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel.
Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed those which he obtained by virtue of his being a
stockholder of Solar Textile Finishing Corporation.
The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying dividends to Aurelio which
compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as stockholder. He
recommended that Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and adopted such
recommendation.
ISSUE
WON Aurelio violated Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD
It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is a fiduciary
one. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-established rule is
that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in his professional character by
a client, unless the latter consents. This obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client
arises at the inception of their relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employ the attorney
and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It even survives the death of the
client.
(Note: In the full text, there was no mention of Canon 21, idk why You may check the text.)