(01) DOLORES C. BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN S.

MACASA
AC No. 7815, July 23, 2009

FACTS:
Complainant Dolores Belleza engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Alan Macasa on
recommendation of their mutual friend, Joe Chua in connection with case of her son, Francis John
Belleza. Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000, which the complainant paid in three
occasions thru their mutual friend Chua. In all three, the respondent did not issue any receipt. Also,
respondent received P18,000 from the complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the
provisional liberty of her son. Again, the respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant went
to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but
respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son and
complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorneys Office for her son’s defense.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a verified petition for disbarment against respondent with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline requires respondent to file an
answer. The respondent requested an extension to file an answer three times but he never did. The CBD
ruled on the charges, finding respondent guilty and recommended a suspension of six months and the
return of the P30,000 and P18,000. The Board of Governors adopted the recommendation except the
return of the P18,000.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent was given the opportunity to answer the charges against him.

HELD:
YES. Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him. Yet, he
showed indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusations of
professional misconduct against him. Respondent also ignored the CBDs directive for him to file his
position paper. His propensity to flout the orders of the CBD showed his lack of concern and disrespect
for the proceedings of the CBD. He disregarded the oath he took when he was accepted to the legal
profession to obey the laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal authorities. Respondent’s
unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted
utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is
called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with
court directives as an officer of the court.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(02) VALENTIN C. MIRANDA vs. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO

AC No. 6281, September 26, 2011

FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent in a land registration case when his original counsel
figured in a vehicular accident. Their agreement as compensation for the legal services was to pay
P20,000 as acceptance fee and P2,000 as appearance fee. During the last day of hearing, respondent
demanded an additional P10,000 for the preparation of a memorandum that supposedly will further
strengthen his case and 20 percent of the total area of the subject property as additional fee for his
services. Complainant did not accede to the demand for it was contrary to their agreement. Thereafter,
a decision granting the petition for registration was granted. When complainant went to the Register of
Deeds to get the owner’s duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title, he was surprised that it was
already claimed and released to the respondent. Thus, he asked the respondent to turn over the title
was the latter refused and reiterated his demand.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent counsel can validly withhold the owner’s duplicate of the OCT as retaining lien for
his alleged unpaid additional compensation.

HELD:
NO. The SC ruled that respondent’s claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally give him the
right to retain the property of his client until he is paid has no basis. One of the elements in order that
an attorney’s retaining lien may be recognized is having an unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees. There
was no proof of any agreement that the respondent counsel is entitled to an additional professional fee
of 20 percent of the total area covered by OCT No. 0-94. Clearly, there is no unsatisfied claim for
attorney’s fee that would entitle the respondent to retain his client’s property.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON

AC No. 9608, November 27, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for grossly immoral conduct, alleging that the
crime of rape was committed against her person when she was merely 13 years old by respondent, a
married man. Respondent on his part, admitted to having carnal knowledge with the complainant but
alleged that it was done in mutual agreement after just compensation and he was not aware that the
complainant was only 13 years old. Moreover, respondent submitted that his act of having sex with
complainant does not constitute grossly immoral conduct worthy of disbarment or suspension.

ISSUE:
WON the act of respondent constitutes grossly immoral conduct worthy of disbarment or suspension

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants saction. His act of
having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his marital vow of fidelity. Whether the sexual encounter between the
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment. Respondent
clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly. Respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in
his character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and his outright defiance of
established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of
the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(05) FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO vs. ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA

AC No. 6708, August 25, 2005

FACTS:
Complainant Felicitas Quiambao was the president and managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau,
Inc (AIB). Quiambao procured the legal services of respondent Atty. Nestor Bamba for the corporate
affairs of AIB. Respondent was also the official legal counsel of an ejectment case filed by complainant
against spouses Santiago and Florito Torroba.
When Quiambao resigned from AIB, Atty. Bamba, without withdrawing as counsel from the ejectment
case, represented AIB in a complaint case for replevin and damages against her. Quiambao filed charges
against Atty. Bamba for representing conflicting interests and violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent denies that he was a personal lawyer of Quiambao, and he believes that it is
part of his duty to pursue cases in behalf of employees at the time Quiambao was working in AIB. Even
then, Atty. Bamba contends that the ejectment case and replevin case are completely unrelated.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent committed a misconduct by representing conflicting interests in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Bamba is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. Despite Atty. Bamba’s
contention that his legals services extend to AIB’s employees, this should not cover the personal cases
filed by its officers. Even though the replevin and ejectment case are unrelated, representing opposing
clients therein gives rise to suspicions of double-dealing, and would thus result to a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, Atty. Bamba failed to show that he disclosed or procured the approval of Quiambao
before pursuing the replevin case against her.

(06) FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA vs. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO

AC No. 7298, June 25, 2007

FACTS:
Respondent appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against complainant Fernando Martin Pena.
Hufana prayed for claim for separation pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter, Aparicio
sent Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he threatened
complainant that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement,
he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as
tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations
of laws.

ISSUE:
WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, enjoining every lawyer to
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law?

HELD:
Yes. Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case
or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel the
adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client. In the case at bar, the
threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail. The letter in
this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory
charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim
for separation pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

(7)