LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.

Facts:
Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of
land owned by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana
allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for
the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido
Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information
he obtained from her in filing the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and
execution of the Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential
information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present disbarment complaint was
instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who
lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this
reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be
fully supported by the evidence on record and Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors
denied his motion.

Issue : Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting

interests.

HELD:

The SC agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the
IBP Board of Governors. The SC rules that the relationship between a lawyer and his/her
client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s
most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy
and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above
rule is present in a given case.

1
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one
client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s
argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other
client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation

would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is
whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, substantial evidence proved to support
Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule: first, he filed a case against the complainant
in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in
the case; and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he
had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another
client in the same action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to
contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property in which his legal
services had been previously retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice
of law.

Kupers v. Hontanosas A.C. No. 5704, May 8, 2009

Facts: Complainant claimed that as counsel for Hans and Vivian Busse, respondent had
prepared a memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease between the spouses
Busse and Hochstrasser, a Swiss national. Under said agreement, Hochstrasser would
lease Vivian Busse’s property in Alcoy, Cebu for fifty (50) years, renewable for another
fifty (50) years. Complainant added that respondent had acted despite conflict of interest
on his part since the Spouses Busse and Hochstrasser were both his clients. Respondent
prepared a similar agreement and lease contract between the spouses Busse and Karl
Emberger, a Swiss national, over another parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. This time the
lease contract was for a period of forty nine (49) years renewable for another forty nine
(49) years. All four (4) documents were notarized by respondent. It was also averred that

2
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

respondent drafted two deeds of sale over the leased properties of Spouses Busse to
Naomie Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl Novak, a German National. The Commissioner found
that respondent had prepared and notarized contracts that violated Presidential Decree
No. 471 (P.D. No. 471) since leases of private lands by aliens cannot exceed twenty five
(25) years, renewable for another twenty five (25) years. Nonetheless, complainant failed
to prove the other charges he had hurled against respondent as the former was not privy
to the agreements between respondent and the latter’s clients. Moreover, complainant
failed to present any concrete proof of the other charges. The commissioner
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) months.
Upon review, the IBP Board of Governors disregarded the recommendation of the
commissioner and dismissed the complaint. The Board of Governors ratiocinated that
suspension was not warranted since respondent did not really perform an illegal act. The
act was not illegal per se since the lease agreement was likely made to reflect the
agreement among the parties without considering the legality of the situation. While
admittedly respondent may be guilty of ignorance of the law or plain negligence, the
Board dismissed the complaint out of compassion.

Issue: Whether the Lawyer’s committed a violation of this oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

Held: Yes, the court stressed that much is demanded from those who engage in the
practice of law because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also to the court, to
the bar, and to the public. The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his work and
profession ideally should not only promote the interests of his clients. A lawyer has the
duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect for the legal profession. The
administrative cases against lawyers are sui generes and as such the complainant in the
case need not be the aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a party to the
contracts, the charge of drafting and notarizing contracts in contravention of law holds
weight. A plain reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting
lease of private lands to aliens for a period of twenty five (25) years renewable for
another twenty five (25) years. In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts,
respondent violated the Attorney’s Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to “obey the
laws of the Philippines.” This duty is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath16 and in Canon 1,
which provides that “(a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: “A
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing
confidence in the legal systems.”

The other canons of professional responsibility which respondent transgressed are the
following:

Canon 15 – a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.

3
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

Rule 15.07- a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of hairness.

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.

Spouses Rafols v. Barrios A.C. No. 4973, March 15, 2010

Facts: Dismissed Judge Dizon Jr. extorted money from the complainant for the favorable
outcome of their case under the Judge’s sala. The said Judge was introduced to the
complainant by their lawyer respondent. In a resolution the Court approved the
recommendations, and directed the Office of the Bar Confidant to investigate the
actuations of the respondent, and to render its report and recommendation thereon. in
the proceedings of the OBC, only the respondent appeared. Denying the charges against
him, he sought the dismissal of the complaint and re-affirmed the contents of his
comment. Despite notice, the complainants did not appear before the OBC. However, the
complainants and the respondent had testified during the administrative hearing
involving Judge Dizon, Jr. before Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. In its
Report and Recommendation of the OBC opined that the administrative case against the
respondent could not be dismissed on the ground of failure to prosecute due to the
complainants’ failure to appear in the scheduled hearing despite due notice. Based on
the facts already established and identified, as rendered in the decision against the
dismissed Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, the OBC rejected the respondent’s denial of any
knowledge of the transaction between his clients and the judge.

Issue: Whether the OBC erred in finding the Respondent violating his oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility?

Held: No, the court find the recommendation of the OBC to be fully and competently
supported by the evidence adduced by the complainants and their witnesses, but we
impose the supreme penalty of disbarment, which we believe is the proper penalty. To
begin with, the respondent’s denial of knowledge of the transaction between the
complainants and Judge Dizon, Jr. was not only implausible, but also unsubstantiated. It
was the respondent himself who had introduced the complainants to the judge. His act of
introducing the complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent was
aware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent’s clients.

Secondly, the respondent’s insistence that he did not see the complainants’ act of
handing the money to the judge is unbelievable. In his comment, the respondent even
admitted having himself received the ₱80,000.00 from the complainants, and having kept
₱30,000.00 of that amount pursuant to the instruction of the judge as a token of the
friendship between him and the judge. The admission proved that the respondent had
known all along of the illegal transaction between the judge and the complainants, and
belied his feigned lack of knowledge of the delivery of the money to the judge.

4
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants had given the money to the judge as
a loan, far from softening our strong impression of the respondent’s liability, confirmed
his awareness of the gross impropriety of the transaction. Being the complainants’
attorney in the civil case being heard before the judge, the respondent could not but
know that for the judge to borrow money from his clients was highly irregular and
outrightly unethical. If he was innocent of wrongdoing, as he claimed, he should have
desisted from having any part in the transaction. Yet, he did not, which rendered his
explanation unbelievable. Compounding the unworthiness of his explanation was his
admission of having retained ₱30,000.00 of the “borrowed” money upon the judge’s
instruction.

And, lastly, the OBC has pointed out that the respondent’s act of requesting the NBI
Regional Office in Davao City to investigate was an afterthought on his part. We agree
with the OBC, for the respondent obviously acted in order to anticipate the complainants’
moves against him and the judge. To be sure, the respondent sensed that the
complainants would not simply forgive and forget the mulcting they had suffered at the
hands of the judge and their own attorney from the time that the complainants assured
him that they were no longer interested to get back their money despite their being very
angry at the judge’s greed.

Overall, the respondent’ denials were worthless and unavailing in the face of the
uncontradicted evidence showing that he had not only personally arranged the meeting
between Manuel and Judge Dizon, Jr., but had also communicated to the complainants
the judge’s illegal reason for the meeting. It is axiomatic that any denial, to be accepted
as a viable defense in any proceeding, must be substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. This need derives from the nature of a denial as evidence of a negative and
self-serving character, weightless in law and insufficient to overcome the testimony of
credible witnesses on affirmative matters.

The conclusion that the respondent and the disgraced Judge Dizon, Jr. were conspirators
against the former’s own clients, whom he was sworn to protect and to serve with
utmost fidelity and morality, is inevitable for the Court to make in this administrative
case. And, being conspirators, they both deserve the highest penalty. The disbarment of
the respondent is in order, because such sanction is on par with the dismissal of Judge
Dizon, Jr.

Cordon v. Balicanta A.C. No. 2797, October 4, 2002

Facts: Complainant Rosaura Cordon filed with this Court a complaint for disbarment
against respondent Balicanta. The court, referred the matter to the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation. Complainant filed a supplemental complaint which was duly
admitted and, as agreed upon, the parties filed their respective position papers. Based on
her complaint, she and her daughter inherited 21 parcels of land located in Zamboanga
City. The respondent helped her settle the estate of her late husband. Respondent

5
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that would develop the
said real properties. Thereafter, respondent single-handedly ran the affairs of the
corporation in his capacity as Chairman of the Board, President, General Manager and
Treasurer. The respondent also made complainant sign a document which turned out to
be a voting trust agreement. Respondent likewise succeeded in making complainant sign
a special power of attorney to sell and mortgage some of the parcels of land she
inherited from her deceased husband. In time the corporation became in debt and in the
brink of foreclosure. Respondent refused to cooperate with the complainant when it tried
to take over the management of the corporation. Respondent’s blamed the stockholders
in the failure of the corporation and absolves himself.

Issue: Whether the respondent can invoke the separate personality of the corporation to
absolve him from exercising these duties over the properties turned over to him by
complainant.

Held: No, the Court holds that respondent cannot invoke the separate personality of the
corporation to absolve him from exercising these duties over the properties turned over
to him by complainant. He blatantly used the corporate veil to defeat his fiduciary
obligation to his client, the complainant. Toleration of such fraudulent conduct was never
the reason for the creation of said corporate fiction. The massive fraud perpetrated by
respondent on the complainant leaves us no choice but to set aside the veil of corporate
entity. For purposes of this action therefore, the properties registered in the name of the
corporation should still be considered as properties of complainant and her daughter. The
respondent merely held them in trust for complainant (now an ailing 83-year-old) and her
daughter. The properties conveyed fraudulently and/or without the requisite authority
should be deemed as never to have been transferred, sold or mortgaged at all.
Respondent shall be liable, in his personal capacity, to third parties who may have
contracted with him in good faith.

Based on the aforementioned findings, this Court believes that the gravity of
respondent’s offenses cannot be adequately matched by mere suspension as
recommended by the IBP. Instead, his wrongdoings deserve the severe penalty of
disbarment, without prejudice to his criminal and civil liabilities for his dishonest acts.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer “to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” He is bound “to account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.” The relation
between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound
to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and
failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.

Overgaard v. Valdez A.C. No. 7902, March 31, 2009

Facts: The complainant, engaged the services of respondent as his legal counsel in two
cases filed by him and two cases filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount

6
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

of legal fees, the respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under their
contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s request for a report of the status of
the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the complainant’s demands for the return of
the money paid to him. Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against
Valdez before the IBP. During the investigation, respondent Valdez did not participate
despite due notice. He was declared in default for failure to submit an answer and attend
the mandatory conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the hearing. The
Court held that respondent Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Issue: whether respondent’s abandonment of his client constitutes a violation of his oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held: Yes, the court find that respondent’s disbarment should be upheld. From the facts of
the case, and based on his own admissions, it is evident that he has committed multiple
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In abruptly abandoning his law
office without advising his client and without making sure that the cases he was
handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence, and without making
arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the respondent is clearly guilty
of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then
rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that
there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert
his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least
exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that the
cases he was handling were attended to and that his client’s interest was safeguarded. If
it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have
informed the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw
from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who could
properly represent him. Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared, deserted his client
and forgot about the cases entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage and
prejudice. The respondent’s disbarment is not anchored on his failure to do anything in
relation the cases entrusted to his care, but on his abandonment of his client. He will not
be absolved from liability on the basis alone of these inconsequential acts which he
claims to have accomplished because the glaring fact remains that he has failed to
perform his essential obligations to his client, to the courts and to society. As the
complainant’s lawyer, the respondent is expected to serve his client with competence
and diligence.30 This includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and
giving the complainant sound legal advice, but also properly representing his client in
court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings, prosecuting
the cases entrusted to his care with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination
without waiting for his client or the court to prod him to do so. He should not idly sit by
and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.

7
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

Belleza v Macasa A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009

Fact: Complainant went to see respondent to avail of respondent’s legal services in

connection with the case of her son who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City
earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to
handle the case for ₱30,000. The following day, complainant made a partial payment to
respondent thru their mutual friend. She gave him an additional ₱10,000 and ₱5,000 as
payment for the balance. Both payments were also made thru Chua. Respondent received
₱18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional
liberty of her (complainant’s) son. 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 ₱18,000 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 Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense.
Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent in
the Negros Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. IBP Negros
Occidental chapter transmitted the complaint to the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline.
The CBD required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof.
Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file an answer for three times
but failed to send an answer. In its report and recommendation the CBD ruled that
respondent failed to rebut the charges against him. He never answered the complaint
despite several chances to do so. The CBD found respondent guilty of violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: Whether the respondent violated his Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility and must be barred to practice law.

Held: Yes, the court affirmed the CBD’s finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP Board of
Governors but we modify the IBP’s recommendation as to the liability of respondent. The
Respondent disrespected the legal processes. 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 grossly neglected the cause of his client. Respondent undertook
to defend the criminal case against complainant’s son, but neglected them. A lawyer’s
negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and
client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a
litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both
unprofessional and unethical. Respondent failed to return his Client’s money. When a
lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for
filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly
account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its
intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render
an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not

8
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him. Instead of using
the money for the bond of the complainant’s son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his client.34 He failed to live up to his
fiduciary duties. By keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that he would
facilitate the release of complainant’s son, respondent showed lack of moral principles.
His transgression showed him to be a swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the
legal profession. Therefore considering all the violation and infraction of the respondent,
the court DISBARRED him from the practice of law.

Andrada v. Cera A.C. No. 10187, July 22, 2015

Facts: The complainant hired the respondent to represent her in an annulment of

marriage case pending before the RTC. In order to file the annulment case, the
complainant needed to submit National Statistics Office (NSO) copies of her children’s
birth certificates – documents which could not be obtained from the NSO because of her
husband’s failure to completely accomplish the certificates resulting in the non-
registration of the births of their two children. The complainant gave the respondent
money to process the registration and issuance of her children’s birth certificates with
the NSO. The complainant also gave the respondent, through a friend, the amount of
₱10,000.00 as advance payment for the hiring of a psychologist and/or the conduct of
psychologist tests for herself and her children. The complainant repeatedly asked the
respondent for the NSO receipt, but the latter would always give an excuse not to turn
the receipt over to her. This prompted the complainant to request confirmation of
payment from the NSO. She found out that the respondent never paid nor filed
applications for birth certificates. The complainant wrote a demand letter to the
respondent for the surrender of the NSO receipt and the return of the ₱10,000.00. After
the respondent refused to heed the complainant’s demands, the complainant filed the
present administrative complaint against him before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-CBD). The respondent returned to the
complainant the amount of seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty pesos
(₱17,280.00), pursuant to a compromise agreement that the parties entered into in
exchange for the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa filed by the complainant
against the respondent. As part of the settlement, the respondent agreed to secure the
birth certificates of the complainant’s children, an obligation which the respondent has
not yet fulfilled up to the present. IBP found that the respondent had engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct against his client’s interest in violation of
Canon 1 of the CPR, and found the respondent guilty of misappropriating the funds
entrusted to him by his client and of failing to account for and to return his client’s
money upon demand, in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR.

Issue: whether respondent’s negligence violates his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility and that his restitution of the complainants money cannot serve to
mitigate his administrative?

9
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

Held: Yes, the court sustain the IBP Board of Governors’ findings of administrative
liability, as well as its recommended penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice
of law. Clearly, these actions show the respondent’s negligence and lack of zeal in
handling the complainant’s case, for which he should be made administratively liable. He
violated not only Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, but also Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of
the same Code, which provides that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.” Moreover, the
respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when he unlawfully withheld the
complainant’s money. These omissions confirm the presumption that the respondent
misappropriated the funds of his client, in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR that holds a
lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. The respondent, likewise, violated Rule 16.039 of Canon 16 (which provides
that “a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand”) when he failed to return the complainant’s money upon demand. We note that it
was only after a year that the respondent, under threat of a criminal case filed against
him, returned the complainant’s money. The respondent’s restitution cannot serve to
mitigate his administrative liability as he returned the complainant’s money not
voluntarily but for fear of possible criminal liability.

Foronda v. Alvarez A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014

Facts: The complainant institute a case for the nullification of her marriage. The
respondent was referred to her and the complainant agreed to engage his services for a
fee of ₱195,000.00. The complainant averred that the respondent promised to file the
petition after he received the full payment of his attorney’s fee. The complainant inquired
about the status of her case and was allegedly told by the respondent that her petition
was pending in court; and in another time, she was told that a decision by the court was
already forthcoming. However, when she came back to the country in May 2009, the
respondent told her that her petition was still pending in court and apologized for the
delay. Eventually, the complainant was able to get a copy of her petition and found out
that it was filed a year later. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the
week after she signed the contract of service with the respondent, the latter requested
for a meeting. Thinking that they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But during
the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in the lending business
allegedly ran by the respondent’s sister-in-law which he said can earn five percent (5%)
interest per month. According to the complainant, upon presentment of these checks, the
drawee-bank honored the first two (2) checks, but the rest were dishonored for being
drawn against a closed account. When she brought the matter to the respondent, he
promised to pay her in cash. He actually paid her certain amounts as interest through her
representative. Nevertheless, the respondent failed to pay the entire obligation as
promised.

10
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

Issue: Whether the delay of filing of the petition and issuance of worthless check
constitute disbarment to the Respondent?

Held: No, the Court finds that the penalty of six months suspension only from the
practice of law is commensurate, with a stem warning that a repetition of any of the
infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a heavier penalty.
The Court very well takes note of the fact that the criminal charges filed against the
respondent have been dismissed upon an affidavit of desistance executed by the
complainant. The Court also acknowledges that he dutifully participated in the
proceedings before the IBP-CBD and that he completely settled his obligation to the
complainant, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment Receipt signed by the complainant’s
counsel. Therein, it was acknowledged that the respondent paid the amount of
₱650,000.00 in payment for the checks he issued in favor of the complainant; for the
attorney’s fees he received for the annulment case; and cost and expenses that the
complainant incurred in relation to the cases the latter filed against the respondent
including the instant complaint with the IBP. The respondent was able to file, albeit
belatedly, the complainant’s petition. In addition, he returned in full the money he
received as attorney’s fee in spite of having gone through all the trouble of preparing the
required petition and in filing the same – not to mention the cost he incurred for the
purpose.

Junior v. Grupo A.C. No. 5020, December 18, 2001

Facts: Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent for the
redemption of a parcel of land. Complainant entrusted to respondent the amount of
P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the redemption of the aforesaid property. Respondent
received the said amount as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt. Notwithstanding
the foregoing and for no valid reason, respondent did not redeem the property; as a result
of which the right of redemption was lost and the property was eventually forfeited.
Because of respondent’s failure to redeem the property, complainant had demanded the
return of the money which she entrusted to the former for the above-stated purpose.
Despite repeated demands made by the complainant and without justifiable cause,
respondent has continuously refused to refund the money entrusted to him. In his
Answer, petitioner admitted receiving the amount in question for the purpose for which it
was given. However, he alleged that The subject land for which the money of complainant
was initially intended to be applied could really not be redeemed anymore. By the time
that complainant was to return to Manila, it was already a foregone matter that
respondent’s efforts did not succeed. And so, when transaction failed, respondent
requested the complainant that he be allowed, in the meantime, to avail of the money
because he had an urgent need for some money himself to help defray his children’s
educational expenses. It was really a personal request, a private matter between
respondent and complainant, thus, respondent executed a promissory note for the
amount, a copy of which is probably still in the possession of the complainant.
Respondent did not ask for any fee. His services were purely gratuitous; his acts [were]

11
LEGAL ETHICS- CANON 14-16

on his own and by his own. It was more than pro bono; it was not even for charity; it was
simply an act of a friend for a friend. It was just lamentably unfortunate that his efforts
failed.

Issue: Whether respondent who is not paid for extending legal assistance to the
complainant constitutes a lawyer-client relationship and the non-payment of his debt of
the former to the latter violates his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held: Yes, To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should
have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary
that any retainer should have been paid. promised, or charged for; neither is it material
that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any
kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in
such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
The court ordered the respondent suspended for one month from the practice of law and
directed him to pay the amount given him by his clients within 30 days from notice for his
failure to return the money in question notwithstanding his admission that he did not use
the money for the filing of the appellee’s brief, as agreed by them, because of an alleged
quarrel with his clients.

12