Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Nature
Relationship
and
Creation
of
Attorney-Client
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
Facts: The evidence shows that the complainants hired the respondent in
May, 1962 to represent them in the intestate proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the spouses complainants were adjudged as
one of the six groups of heirs of the late Gonzaga spouses.the respondent
signed as counsel for the complainants, agreed that the coconut land left
by the decedents would be divided into six equal parts, that the
administrator be authorized to sell the land, and that, after payment of
the obligations of the estate, the net proceeds would be distributed
among the six groups of heirs. The land was sold. Fermina LegaspiDaroy came to know of the sale only when the respondent wrote a note
that the same can be withdrawn but he later countermanded and directed
them to go cagayan de oro, it turned out that respondent already recieved
the amount of 4,000 from the sheriff Before the disbarment complaint
was filed several demands were made upon the respondent to pay to the
complainants the amount which he had misappropriated. He repeatedly
broke his promises to make payment. As complainants' patience was
already exhausted, they filed their complaint for disbarment According
to respondent's version, the complainants "refused consistently to
receive" the said balance from him because they wanted the full amount
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. The petitioner
denied such allegations.
Issue : Whether or not Atty. Legaspi be disbarred
Held: We find respondent Legaspi guilty of deceit, malpractice and
professional misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of his
clients. His manufactured defenses, his lack of candor and his repeated
failure to appear at the investigation conducted by the City Fiscal of
Iligan and at the hearings scheduled by this Court, thus causing this
proceeding to drag on for a long time, demonstrate his unworthiness to
remain as a member of the noble profession of law. A lawyer, under his
oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is
4
percent of its gross receipts into the sinking fund of the city. The banks
denied their liability to pay any tax other than that provided in the
Hewitt Act, and hence arose the differences between the city and the
banks.from the embarrassment occasioned by their refusal to pay said
license fee, the banks, with two or three exceptions, were willing to
enter into an arrangement whereby they would pay a part of the amount
demanded of them and lend the sinking fund the balance thereof, to be
repaid, with interest at four percentum per annum, if it was finally
decided and adjudged that the banks were not liable to pay said license
fees."The agreement set forth in the statement of facts between the City
of Louisville, the sinking fund commissioners of that city, represented
by the city attorney.
Issue: Whether or not the agreement is binding.
Held: The agreement set forth in the statement of facts between the City
of Louisville, the sinking fund commissioners of that city, represented
by the city attorney, and the various banks of that city acting by their
attorneys, was not a valid agreement within the power of an attorney at
law to make. An attorney, in his capacity merely as such, has no power
to make any agreement for his client before a suit has been commenced
or before he has been retained to commence one, and if, under such
circumstances, he assumes to act for his principal, it must be as agent,
and his actual authority must appear. An equitable estoppel which would
prevent the state from exercising its power to alter the rate of taxation in
this case should be based upon the clearest equity, and the payment of
the money under the circumstances of this case, not exceeding the
amount really legally due for taxes, although disputed at the time, does
not work such an equitable estoppel as to prevent the assertion of the
otherwise legal rights of the city.
6. MERCEDES R. VDA. DE GUERRERO,
vs.
ATTY. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, respondent.
SYNOPSIS:
complainant,
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. HERNANDO IS GUILTY OF
MISCONDUCT.
HELD:
1. On Malpractice charge- NO. Respondent was not guilty of any
professional misconduct in including as plaintiffs the said
persons who, by the way, had not joined Mrs. Guerrero in filing
the disbarment complaint herein.. Credence can be given to his
profession of good faith in including them as plaintiffs.
Moreover, in a partition action all the co-owners should be
joined as parties.
8.
Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo, and Africa vs. Eastern
Telecommunications Phils., Inc.
G.R. No. 104600
July 2, 1999
Ponente: Pardo, J.
Facts: On August 28, 1987, respondent was represented by law firm San
Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin (SAGA), to which the latter
filed a complaint for recovery of revenue shares against PLDT. Atty.
Francisco Rilloraza, a partner of SAGA, appeared for respondent. When
respondent rested its case, it paid SAGA P100,000.00. Almost a month
later, SAGA was dissolved, and four of the junior partners therein
formed the law firm Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo & Africa, the
petitioners, which took over respondents case. The latter signed a
retainer agreement with petitioners on October 1, 1987, which allows
15% attorneys fees to be collected of the property acquired or liability
saved when judicial action becomes necessary to effect collection. Atty.
Rilloraza continued representing the case on behalf of petitioners. Later,
however, respondent wrote petitioners that the former was terminating
their retainer contract on June 30, 1988. This prompted petitioners to file
with the trial court a notice of attorneys lien, along with the statement
that there were negotiations for compromise between respondent and
PLDT. Respondent and PLDTs negotiations resulted with an amount of
approximately P125 million plus P50 million. The trial court denied the
enforcement of attorneys lien worth approximately P26 million (15%
attorneys fees in their retainer agreement). Petitioners filed a notice of
appeal with the trial court, which was also denied. Petitioners then filed
a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the latter
remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA affirmed the trial courts
decision. Hence, petitioners filed this petition for review.
the settlement that occurred, nor did it ever obtain a favorable judgment
for respondent. The petition is granted, reverses the decision of CA, and
remands the case to trial court for determination of attorneys fees to
which petitioners are entitled.
Other note/s: When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does
not employ the services of the lawyer who is assigned to personally
handle the case. Rather, he employs the entire law firm. Atty. Rilloza
represented respondent as lawyer of SAGA (when the case was
instituted), and when the latter was dissolved, as lawyer of the law firm
of petitioners.
9. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. J.O. Wagner, et al.
G.R. No. L-30641
December 18, 1929
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
Facts: Respondents J.O. Wagner, Catherine Wagner, and J.J. Murphy
purchased a property owned by petitioner in Baguio, and built
improvements therein. The Wagners executed a written power-ofattorney authorizing Murphy to act on behalf of them, as owners of the
said property. Later, however, they also sent a cablegram to Wilbur
Wilson and his counsel that the latter is authorized to take all legal
means protect their interest over said property. When petitioner sought
to rescind the contract, the case was brought to court, with the service of
notice sent to Murphy, for himself as owner of an undivided interest
over the said property and for the Wagners by virtue of the power-ofattorney that the latter executed. Murphy sought the services of Atty.
Walter for the case. The trial court ruled in favor or respondents. On
appeal, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to
determine the amount which petitioner should refund the respondents.
When the case was returned to the trial court, the jurisdiction of the trial
court was impugned by Wilbur Wilson and his counsel. The trial court
ORBIT
TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY,
petitioner,
10
filing a pleading with this Honorable Court or with any court, body or
commission for that matter."
They further sought to explain that "(T)hat matter of Payment of
P5,000.00 being 'the proceeds of the insurance procured by the deceased
with premiums paid from the daily income of the late Ramon Crespo'
and the failure to controvert the claim were never touched and argued
against in said petition because first, a copy of the decision was already
attached to the petition forming part thereof; secondly, if the petition
were given due course, the entire records of the case would be elevated
to the Honorable court for evaluation; ...."
ISSUE:
Whether or not Attys. Vendero and Bartonico, counsels of petitioner, are
subject to disciplinary sanction.
HELD:
YES.
While the Court is disposed under the circumstances to be lenient and to
dispose of the grave transgressions of counsel with a reprimand and
warning, the Court deems this a timely occasion to remind counsel in
particular and practitioners in general that time-pressure provides no
justification for the suppression of material and vital facts which bear
on the merit or lack of merit of a petition.
The Court has time and again stressed that members of the bar owe
fidelity to the courts as well as to their clients and that they must show
faithful adherence to the provisions of Rule 7, section 5 that "the
signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read
the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed
for delay" with the admonition therein that "for a willful violation of this
rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action."
The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is required so that
needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be
avoided leaving the courts free to devote their time and attention to
meritorious and truly contentious cases. In this, the attorney plays a
11
major role of advising his client to refrain from seeking further appellate
review and action in plainly untenable cases.
Counsel's proffered excuse for their suppression of the material facts
that the receipt signed by the deceased employee's heirs was in payment
of the deceased's insurance (not compensation) and that respondent was
entitled to the compensation award as the claim was uncontroverted, to
wit, that a copy of respondent commission's decision was attached to the
petition, manifestly violates the requirement of Rule 43, section 2 2 that
"the petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and
the ground relied on for the petition ..." and that "the question raised
must be distinctly set forth in the petition."
ACCORDINGLY, the Court administers a reprimand to Attys. Sergio
D. Vendero and Renerio R. Bartonico with the warning that a repetition
of the same or other violations of their attorney's oath will be severely
dealth with. Let copies of this resolution be entered in their personal
record and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
11.
ADELINO
H.
LEDESMA,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner, on October 13, 1964, was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Province of Negros Occidental. Then and there,
he commenced to discharge its duties. As he was counsel de parte for
one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge, he
filed a motion to withdraw as such. Not only did respondent Judge deny
such motion, but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. Subsequently, on November 3, 1964, petitioner filed an
urgent motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised
on the policy of the Commission on Elections to require full time service
the court is, however, giving you today and tonight up to 8:00 o'clock in
the morning tomorrow to make a soul search, concentrate and ask your
heart, mind and body as to the consequence of your act because under
Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code, by virtue of the crime that you have
committed, the Court has no alternative except to impose the death
penalty which is the maximum penalty provided for by Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code...
The defendants, assisted by counsel de oficio, withdrew their
former plea of "not guilty" and substituted that of "guilty." Allowing the
change of pleas, the trial judge forthwith dictated and promulgated his
decision in open court. All the four defendants were sentenced to death.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court were able to explain to the four
appellants the full import and meaning of their plea of guilty.
Held: NO. The SC said that the judge's curt speech to the defendants,
instructing them "to make a soul search, concentrate and ask their heart,
mind and body as to the consequence of their act," falls far below the
exacting standard of care with which a plea of guilty must be regarded
by a trial court.
The counsel de oficio and the Solicitor General are one in
observing that the trial court should not have rendered the decision
appealed from without requiring the presentation of evidence despite the
accused's plea of guilty. Indeed, as correctly pointed out by both
counsels, the SC has repeatedly stressed the importance and advisability
of taking evidence, in capital cases, notwithstanding the affirmative plea
of the accused, for the purpose of determining his guilt and the degree of
his culpability, to the end that such evidence will dispel all doubt that the
accused misunderstood the nature and effects of his plea. The record of
the present case does not show that the trial court directed any question
to any of the accused regarding the circumstances attending the
commission of the grave crime of which he is charged.
The decision a quo is set aside, and this case is hereby remanded
to the court of origin for a new arraignment of the defendants George
Daeng, Conrado Bautista, Gerardo Abuhin and Rolando Castillo, and for
13
present a case and controversy as the petitioner himself does not even
have a "court standing" and a "litigable interest." All the petitioner seeks
is an "advisory opinion."
In his reply to the comments of the PCGG and the OSG, the
petitioner insists that although as between the Solicitor General and the
PCGG, this case may have been rendered moot and academic, as
between him on the one hand and the Solicitor General and the PCGG
on the other hand, a "real controversy" still exists and the issues raised
herein have not ceased to exist either. Moreover, a judgment of
prohibition and mandamus would have a "practical legal effect and can
be enforced."
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Solicitor General neglected his public duty by
withdrawing as a counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and the
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) in cases he had
filed in Court;
2. Whether or not the PCGG acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
hiring private lawyers as a result of the withdrawal of the appearance.
Held:
1. Yes. Being a public officer, the Solicitor General is "invested with
some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public." Another role of the
Solicitor General is an officer of the Court, in which case he is called
upon "to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and
resolving disputes;" therefore, he may be enjoined in the same manner
that a special prosecutor was sought enjoined by this Court from
committing any act which may tend to "obstruct, pervert or impede and
degrade the administration of justice."
In the case at bar, the reason advanced by the Solicitor General
for his motion to withdraw his appearance as lawyer for the PCGG is
that he has been, more than once embarrassed in court and thereby made
"a laughing stock in his professionalism." Examples are when the OSG
complainant's family during his confinement in the hospital, and then the
P500.00 received in cash by way of additional settlement. He prayed
that the complaint be dismissed.
Later on, the complainant manifested that he was no longer
interested in pushing through his complaint against respondent. In his
affidavit of desistance, he admitted that the administrative charge arose
out of a misunderstanding between him and respondent. The Solicitor
General agreed with such a recommendation and prayed that the case be
dismissed.
Held: The SC said that while it appears that under the circumstances no
case lies against respondent Dominador Abaria, it is not amiss to
impress on members of the Bar that the utmost care be taken to
minimize occasions for any misunderstanding between them and their
clients. The relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present
the need for the latter being adequately and fully informed of the mode
and manner in which their interest is defended. They should not be left
in the dark. They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of why certain
steps are taken and why certain matters are either included or excluded
from the documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that their faith
in counsel may remain unimpaired.
In the case, the client happens to be poor and unlettered, seeking to
enforce what he considers his just demands against an employer, it is
even more imperative that matters be explained to him with all precision
and clarity. More than that, no effort should be spared for him to get
fully what he is entitled to under the law. The same zeal should
characterize a lawyer's efforts as when he is defending the rights of
property. As it is, there is even the fear that a lawyer works harder when
he appears for men of substance. To show how unfounded is such a
suspicion, he must exert his utmost, whoever be his client.
More specifically, he should not invite loss of trust by inadvertence or
even by a failure to use the simplest and most understandable language
in communicating matters. For he may lend himself to the suspicion that
he is lacking in candor and may be taking undue advantage of his client
16
for his own profit and advantage in any dealing with the adverse party.
At any rate, with complainant having been satisfied with the explanation
of respondent, he could not be justly charged of being recreant to his
trust for personal gain. The dismissal of this case is therefore warranted.
17