CASE #1 – DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C.

MAGULTA

FACTS:

Atty Magulta agreed to legally represent Burbe in a money claim and possible civil case against
certain parties for a breach of contract. He prepared a demand letter and other legal papers
which Burbe accordingly paid. Then Atty Magulta suggested tp file the necessary complaint
which he drafted, the filing fee will require the amount of 25,000. On January 4 1999 Burbe
deposited the amount to Atty Magulta, upon the instruction that the case be filed immediately.
A week later Atty Magulta informbed Burbe that the complaint had already been filed in court.
However, in the month that followed there was no progress in his case. Burbe had grown
impatient and visited Atty Magulta, the latter reasoned that the court personel had not yet acted
upon the case, he even brought Burbe to the Hall of Justice to personally follow up the
processes with the Clerk of Court, but it was absent on that day.

Sensing that he was given the run-around, Burbe decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of
Court with the draft of the complaint to personally verify the progress of his case, and was told
that there was no record at all of the case. The following day Burbe confronted Atty Magulta in
his office, he offered to reimburse Burbe by issuing two checks in the amounts of 12,000 and
8,000.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Magulta is guilty for misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive
conduct?

HELD:

YES. Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or the defense of the
clients cause. They who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only protect the
interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice. They do honor to the bar and help
maintain the respect of the community for the legal profession. Members of the bar must do
nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, the
honesty, and integrity of the profession. A lawyer-client relationship was established from the
very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the formers
business. To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the
attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle
the case for which his service had been sought. A lawyer-client relationship exists
notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the
nonpayment of the former’s fees. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them.
 CASE #2 – SPOUSES LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL vs. ATTY.
FAUSTINO F. TUGADE

FACTS:

Rabanal was one of the accused in a criminal case entitled People of the Philippines v.
Marcelino Rabanal et at., he was found guilty of homicide. He terminated the services of his
previous counsel and engaged in the services of Atty. Tugade, as a new counsel to prosecute
appeal. However, despite the extention of time granted totalling 60 days Atty Tugade failed to
file the appelants brief, resulting to the dismissal of the appeal. Rabanal alleged that they had
paid 1,000 as attorney’s fees and, in addition, the amount of 1,400 for the preparation of
apellants brief.

In his comment, Atty Tugade said that he did not want to accept Rabanal’s case due to his busy
schedule, however the latter prevailed because he was his kababayan. Rabanal informed Atty
Tugade that the Court of Appeals had dimissed the appeal for failure of counsel to file an
appelants brief. Atty. Tugade then alleged he then entered his appearance as counsel for
Rabanal and filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeal which he paid for 800.
However, it was denied and Cayetano served sentence from 1974 – 1979 and was released
upon conditional pardon.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Tugade violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

YES. The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was a
professional relationship which merits attorneys fees for professional services rendered. A
written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may
be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of
an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. The records clearly
show that respondent Atty. Faustino F. Tugade was remiss in the performance of his duties as
counsel of complainant Cayetano Rabanal. He thus violated RULE 12.03. and RULE 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly
constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious
lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to
aid in the speedy administration of justice.
 CASE #3 – WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES

FACTS:

Sometime in April 1999 Uy engaged the services or Atty Gonzales to prepare and file a petition
for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with Atty Gonzales the
circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and cost, he prepared, finalized
and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan.
When the petition was about to be filed Atty Gonzales went to Uy’s office and demanded a
certain amount previously agreed upon. Then left after reasoning with him. Instead of the
petition would be filed Uy was shocked to find out that Atty Gonzales filed a letter-complaint
against him for falsification of Public Documents. The letter-complaint contained facts and
circumstances subject matter of the petition which Atty Gonzales was supposed to have filed.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Gonzales violated Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

NO. The alleged secrets of Uy were not specified by him in his affidavit-complaint. Whatever
facts alleged by Atty Gonzales against Uy were not obtained by respondent in his professional
capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and
therefore, when Atty Gonzales filed the complaint for estafa against Uy, which necessarily
involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating
Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against Uy to a
misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be
precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or
proprietary interests.

CASE #4 – ROSA F. MERCADO vs. ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO

FACTS:

Mercado is a Senior Education Program Specialist of the Standards Development Division,

Office of Programs and Standards while Atty Vitriolo is a Depity Executive Direction IV of the
Commission on Higher Education. Mercado’s husband filed a civil case for annulment of their
marriage with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, its dismissal became final and executory
on July 15, 1992. On August 1992, Atty. De Leon Mercado’s counsel died. On February 7, 1994
Atty Vitriolo entered his appearance before the trial court as collaborating counsel for Mercado.
On March 16, 1994, Atty Vitriolo filed his notice of Substitution of Counsel informing RTC of
Pasig that he has been appointed as counsel for Marcado, in substitution of Atty de Leon. It
also appears that on April 13, 1999, Atty Vitriolo filed a criminal action against Mercado for
violating Articles 171 and 172 (falsifications of public document) of the Revised Penal Code.
He alledges that Mercado made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her Children, it
is indicated that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and their marriage was
solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth she is legally married to Ruben Mercado and their
marriage took place on April 11, 1978.

ISSUE: Whether respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney
and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former
client?

HELD:

NO. Now, we go to the rule on attorney-client privilege. Dean Wigmore cites the factors
essential to establish the existence of the privilege: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is
sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications
relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor, (8) except the
protection be waived.

(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and

it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication. Communication from
a (prospective) client to a lawyer for some purpose other than on account of the (prospective)
attorney-client relation is not privileged. (2) The client made the communication in confidence.
Thus, a compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client
and delivered to the opposing party,an offer and counter-offer for settlement,[30] or a document
given by a client to his counsel not in his professional capacity, are not privileged
communications, the element of confidentiality not being present (3) The legal advice must be
sought from the attorney in his professional capacity If the client seeks an accounting service,
or business or personal assistance, and not legal advice, the privilege does not attach to a
communication disclosed for such purpose. Mercado also did not even specify the alleged
communication in confidence disclosed by Atty Vitriolo. All her claims were couched in general
terms and lacked specificity. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine
the merit of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to the existence
of facts which the complainant must prove.

CASE #5 – HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR., v ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA

FACTS:

Lumot Jalandoni, Chairman/President of Penta Resorts Corporation was sued beofre the RTC,
Branch 52 in a Civil Case entitled Cabiles et al, v Lumot Jalandoni et al. She then engaged the
legal services of Atty Villarosa who formally entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 and
represented Jalandoni in the entire proceeding of the case. Hence delicate and confidential
matters involving all the personal circumstances of his client were entrusted to Atty. Villarosa.
The latter was provided with all the necessary information relative to the property in question
and likewise on legal matters affecting the corporation PRC particularly involving problems
which affect Hotel Alhambra. Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the
corporation/hotel. However, on April 27, 1999 respondent, without due notice prior to a
scheduled hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel, one day before its
scheduled hearing on April 28, 1999. No copy was furnished to Jalandoni, neither does it bear
her conformity. Such notorious act resulted for a highly meritorious case in favor of Jalandoni
suddenly suffered unexpected defeat.

The grounds alleged by Atty Villarosa was that he is a retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuenca
and the Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Jalbuena, son-in-law of Lumot Jalandoni married to
her eldest daugther Carmen J. Jalbuena, the other directos/officers of PRC, who recommended
him to be the counsel of Jalandoni. Atty Villarosa cannot refuse to represent Jalbuena in the
case filed against the latter before the City Prosecutors Office by PRC/Lumot Jalandoni due to
an alleged retainership agreement with Jalbuena. He likewise represented Carmen Jalbuena
and one Vincent Delfin when PRC filed a criminal complaint against them.

ISSUE:

1. Whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and handled by Atty.
Villarosa?
2. Whether Atty Villarosa properly withdrew his services as counsel of record in Civil Case
No. 97-9865?

HELD:

1. YES. Atty Villarosa violated Canon 15 of the Cod eof Professional Responsibility
highlights the need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings with their clients.
Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly provides:

Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Conflict of interest may be determined in this manner: There is representation of conflicting

interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.

An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being retained and receiving the
confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act
both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with that of his client
in the same general matter. The prohibition stands even if the adverse interest is very slight;
neither is it material that the intention and motive of the attorney may have been honest.

The representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the written consent of
all parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct
which subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action.

Even respondents alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family members
was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still required. A lawyer who
acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it

2. NO, Atty Villarosa violated Canon 22 of the CPR reads:

 Canon 22 A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.

An attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission
of the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the
name of the new lawyer is recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action
without the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court. He must serve
a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date
set for hearing, otherwise the court may treat the application as a mere scrap of paper. The
appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as
additional counsel. Mrs. Jalandoni’s conformity to having an additional lawyer did not
necessarily mean conformity to respondents desire to withdraw as counsel.

CASE #6 – ROLANDO B. PACANA, JR., vs. ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ

FACTS:

Pacana Jr worked for Multitel (later renamed Precedent) and earned the ire of investors after
becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of Precedent and after being appointed
as trustee of a fund amounting to Thirthy Million Pesos (30,000,000) deposited at Real Bank.
Pacana sought the advice of Atty Pascual-Lopez but no retainer agreement was executed. Atty
Lopez gave regular advice, helped prepare standard quitclaims, solicited money and properties
form Pacana Jr to pay the creditors and even discussed a collection case for the company.
Soon, Pacana Jr noticed that Atty Lopez begun to avoid communication with him. He then wrote
to Atty Lopez a letter formally asking for a full accounting of all the money, documents and
properties given to the latter but she failed to provide a clear audited financial report of all the
properties turned over by Pacana to her. Pacana filed an affidavit-complaint against Atty Lopez
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines seeking the
disbarment of the respondent.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Pascual-Lopez violated Canon 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:

YES. The prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on principles of public policy, good
taste and, more importantly, upon necessity. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the
lawyer learns all the facts connected with the client’s case, including it’s weak and strong points,
which knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care.
 CASE #7 – ELESIO C. PORMENTO, SR., vs. ATTY. ALIAS A. PONTEVEDRA

FACTS:

Pormento alleges that between 1964-1994 Atty Pontevedra was his family’s legal counsel
having represented him and members of his family in all legal proceedings in which they are
involve. The family’s relationship with Atty Pontevedra extend beyond mere lawyer-client
relations as they gave him moral, spiritual, physical and financial support in his different
endeavors. The rift between Pormento and Atty Pontevedra begun when Pormento’s
counterclaim in a civil case with RTC of Bacolod City was dismissed. Pormento claims that
Atty Pontevedra, who was his lawyer, deliberately failed to inform him of the dismissal of his
counterclaim despite receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result he was
deprived of his right to appeal. He was constrained to hire a new lawyers Atty Pontevedra
refused to institute an action for the recovery of the subject property. He also claims that in
order to further protect his rights and interest over the said parcel of land, he was forced to
initiate a criminal case for qualified theft against the relations of the alleged new owner of the
land. Atty Pontevedra utilized pieces of confidential information he obtained from Pormento
while the latter is still his client. In a separate incident, Pormento claims that in 1967, he bought
a parcel of land located at Escalante, Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of Heirship
and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by Atty. Pontevedra and acted as the counsel
of Pormento’s nephew.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Pontevedra is guilty of malpractice and misconduct on three grounds: (1)
for representing interests which conflict with those of his former client, herein complainant; (2)
for taking advantage of the information and knowledge that he obtained from complainant; and,
(3), for not notifying complainant of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648?

HELD:

NO. There is no conflict of interests when respondent represented herein complainants nephew
and other members of his family in the ejectment case and in the criminal complaint filed by
herein Pormento against them. The only established participation Atty Pontevedra had with
respect to the parcel of land purchased by Pormento, is that he was the one who notarized the
deed of sale of the said land. On that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow that Atty
Pontevedra obtained any information from Pormento that can be used to the detriment of the
latter in the ejectment case he filed.

However, we find conflict of interests in Atty Pontevedra’s representation of herein complainant

in Civil Case No. 1648 and his subsequent employment as counsel of the accused in Criminal
Case No. 3159. The subject matter in Civil Case No. 1648 is Lot 609 located at Escalante,
Negros Occidental, the same parcel of land involved in Criminal Case No. 3159 filed by herein
complainant against several persons, accusing them of theft for allegedly cutting and stealing
coconut trees within the premises of the said lot. But the court did not find no direct evidence
to prove that respondent took advantage of any information that he may have been acquired
from complainant and used the same in the defense of his clients in criminal case. It is possible
that the information as to the ownership of the disputed lot used by respondent in bringing up
this issue may have been obtained while he still acted as counsel for Pormento. It is also
probable that such information may have been taken from other sources, like the Registry of
Deeds, the Land Registration Authority or the Atty Pontevedra’s clients themselves.
The court find respondent guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. As to the
third ground, we find that complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove that
respondent did not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim in Civil Case No. 1648. On
the contrary, we find sufficient evidence to prove that complainant has been properly notified of
the trial courts order of dismissal. Atty Pontevedra is further reminded to be more cautious in
accepting professional employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety
including circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times with
circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing candor,
fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients

CASE #8 – OSCAR M. ESPIRITU vs. ATTY. JAIME C. ULEP

FACTS:

Espiritu sough assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to enable him to talk to the
respondent Atty Ulep. He wanted to meet Atty Ulep for the following reasons:

(1) respondent failed to turn-over to his client, Mr. Ricardo Maon, the amount of P50,000
given to him by complainant on December 22, 1997 as settlement of Civil Case No. 1028,
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Rizal, Nueva Ecija, and

(2) respondent refused to give complainant the amount of P30,000 plus interest and
expenses as balance for a deed of absolute sale dated December 22, 1997 which the
respondent brokered and notarized.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ulep is guilting of violating Canon 16 of the code of Professional
Responsibility?

HELD:

YES. The relation between attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature. It requires utmost
good faith, loyalty, fidelity and disinterestedness on the part of the attorney. Its fiduciary nature
is intended for the protection of the client.The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
every lawyer to hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under
any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him. Failure to return upon
demand the funds or property held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption
that he has appropriated the same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the
trust reposed in him by, his client. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are
in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the
legal profession
 CASE #9 – AVITO YU vs. ATTY. CESAR R. TAJANLANGIT

FACTS:

Yu alleged that he had engaged the services of Atty Tajanlangit as defense counsel in a criminal
case that resulted in a conviction and a sentence of thirty years of imprisonment. The Motion
for reconsideration or new trial was denied by a trial court, instead of filing an appeal, Atty
Tajanlangit filed for certiorari under Rule 65 under 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition
was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals, due to the choice of remedy the period of
appeal lapse and Yu was made to suffer imprisonment resulting to his conviction. Atty
Tajanlangit allegedly violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 16.01 of Code of Professional Responsibility
for failing to return the bail bond to Yu in the amount of P195,000.

ISSUE:

1. Whether Atty Tajanlangit violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 16.01?

HELD:

No, Atty Tajanlangit was not Yu’s laywer during the trial of the criminal case which resulted to
his conviction. He was only engaged as counsel after the withdrawal of appearance of
complainant's lawyers and denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and the
supplement thereto. Yu made no mention of the availability of the remedy of appeal at the time
of respondent's employment. The Court finds adequate respondent's justification for filing the
petition for certiorari instead of an appeal. Indeed, there is no showing that respondent was
negligent in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by complainant. It was not at all improper
for respondent to have withdrawn the cash bonds as there was evidence showing that
complainant and respondent had entered into a special fee arrangement.

On the charge of Rule 16.01 it is also indisputable that Yu executed a Special Power of Attorney
dated 23 March 1999 authorizing the Respondent to withdraw the cash bonds in several
criminal cases on his behalf. Thus, it was not all improper for Respondent to withdraw the same.
Atty Tajanlangit is entitled to be paid for the legal services he rendered and expenses he
incurred, it is still his obligation to render an accounting of the money received.

However, there is no showing that from the time the instant disbarment complaint was filed,
which in itself constitutes the demand for its payment, any payment (was) made by the
Respondent.