Alawi v Alauya

Facts:

Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of
Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent
executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City, They were
classmates, and used to be friends.

Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments
by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was
also granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC).

Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co.
advising of the termination of his contract with the company. He claimed that his
consent was vitiated because Alawi had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit,
fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice
President of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.

On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him.

One of her grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only
regular members of the Philippine Bar may properly use.

Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion that it is “lexically
synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law.” a title to which Shari’a lawyers have a
rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is
often mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal” or the Maranao term “consial,” connoting
a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a
lawyer.

Issue:

Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use the title of Attorney

Held:

He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular Philippine bar.
As regards Alauya’s use of the title of “Attorney,” this Court has already had occasion
to declare that persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the
Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari’a courts. While one who
has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the
Philippine Bar, may both be considered “counsellors,” in the sense that they give
counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an “attorney.” The title
of “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the
study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and
it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction

NG v. ALAR
(ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)

FACTS:
Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case, Alar is the counsel for the
complainant in the labor case. The case was filed when employees of the Ng
Company alleged that they did not receive their service incentives because the Ng
Company refused to pay because a strike was conducted on company premises
hampering entrance and exit into the area. It was later found that the incentive pay
had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed the appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion
to Inhibit, where Alar used scandalous, offensive and menacing language to support
the complaint. He called the labor arbiter crossed-eyed in making his findings of fact
and that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice in ruling that the labor arbiter
decided correctly. He also alleged that NLRC retiring commissioners circumvent the
law when the money claims involved in the cases are large. Because of this a
disbarment case was filed against him saying that he violated canons 8 and 11. Alar
argues that he did not violate them because: 1) NLRC is not a court contemplated by
the rules; 2) NLRC commissioners are not judges; 3) the complaints in labor cases
are bound to be heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He counterclaimed
that the lawyers of Ng are the ones in violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits
from the same cause of action and that they deliberately lessened the number of
complainants in the labor case. The commission on bar discipline found Alar guilty
of violating the CPR.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.

HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults attacking the NLRC, casting doubt
on its moral and intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be bought. He
used improper and offensive language, which cannot be justified. Though a lawyer’s
language may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be dignified and respectful.
He deserves not only a warning but also a fine of P 5,0000. The counter-complaint is
dismissed because there was no position paper submitted to substantiate the
claims.

NAKPIL v VALDES

Facts:
 Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran, Baguio.
He went into an agreement with Atty. Carlos Valdes for the latter to buy the
property in trust for Nakpil.
 Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. The lands’ titles were
transferred to his name.
 When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of
Valdes and his accounting and law firms for the settlement of the estate of
Jose Nakpil.
 What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets
of Jose Nakpil (he actually transferred the property to his company, the Caval
Realty Corporation) while including the loans he contracted.
 What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. While the case
was pending, Imelda also filed an administrative complaint for disbarment
against Valdes.
 The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. The CA reversed the CFI.
 The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor
of Nakpil. The SC held that Valdes only held the lots in trust for Nakpil.
Issue:
 W/n Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely:
o Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil;
o Including his loans as claims on the estate; and
o Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting
firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil and ENORN
against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his law
firm.
Held:
 The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year.
 The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust
reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the latter agreed to use his
professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear that Jose
Nakpil and Atty. Came to an agreement that the latter would be buying the
property in trust for Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the
estate and including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit) as
claims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose and him (they
 had a close relationship since the 50’s), which was the basis for Imelda’s
decision to use his services.
 As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests which is proscribed by Canon 15 Rule 15.03. In the case at bar,
there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors
are adverse to each other. Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of
assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims
of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest
of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who
are creditors of the estate.

CANOY v ORTIZ

Facts: A Complaint was filed Canoy accusing Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and
malpractice. It was alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Coca Cola Philippines. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for Canoy in
this proceeding. Canoy submitted all the documents and records to Atty. Ortiz
for the preparation of the position paper. Thereafter, he made several
unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the
case. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually dismissed way
back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their
position papers. Canoy alleged that Ortiz had never communicated to him
about the status of the case.

Atty. Ortiz informs the Court that he has mostly catered to indigent
and low-income clients, at considerable financial sacrifice to himself. Atty.
Ortiz admits that the period within which to file the position paper had
already lapsed. He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to
the fact that after his election as Councilor of Bacolod City, “he was frankly
preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a
practicing lawyer.”

Issue: W/N Atty. is liable to be sanctioned.

Held: Atty. Ortiz is to be sanctioned. Suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
month.
Several of the canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility
guard against the sort of conduct.
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 the
client’s request for information.
His failure to do so constitutes a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. A lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client. The relationship of lawyer-client being
one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be
adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not
be left in the dark.
Neither is the Court mollified by the circumstance of Atty. Ortiz’s
election as a City Councilor of Bacolod City, as his adoption of these additional
duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior.