Case Digests for Legal Counselling

Prepared by: Dianne B. Bisoña

 Dominador P. Burbe vs Atty. Alberto C. Magulta

AC No. 99-634; June 10, 2002

FACTS:

Burbe sought the services of Atty. Magulta and deposited P25,000 to the latter as

payment for the filing fee of the complaint. Atty. Magulta assured Burbe that the case had

been filed. Seeing no progress whatsoever in the case Atty. Magulta supposedly filed,

Burbe personally verified the status of the case and was informed that it was never filed

before the Office of the Clerk of Court. When Burbe confronted Atty. Magulta, he admitted

that he spent the money for his own purpose and offered to reimburse Burbe the full

amount. Aggrieved, Burbe filed a complaint against Atty. Magulta before the IBP for

misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive conduct.

Atty. Magulta interposed as defense that Burbe failed to give the filing fee and that the

P25,000 was for attorney’s fees. He further claimed that his personnel erroneously issued

a receipt indicating that it was for filing fees when in fact it was for his attorney’s fees. He

also claimed that he already reimbursed Burbe the amount via check which the latter

accepted and encashed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Magulta violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as a lawyer

when he: a) Failed to file the complaint on behalf of his client; and b) Appropriated for

himself the money given for filing fee.

HELD:

Yes. The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyering is not primarily

meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily

yields profits. In failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given by complainant --- as

1|Page
evidenced by the receipt issued by the law office of the respondent --- Atty. Magulta also

violated the rule that lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted

to them in their professional capacity. Atty. Magulta fell short of his standard when he

converted into his legal fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus failed to

file the complaint promptly. The fact that Atty. Magulta returned the amount does not

exculpate him from his breach of duty.

CASES RELATING TO CANON 7

 Soliman M. Santos vs Atty. Francisco R. Llamas

AC No. 4749; January 20, 2000

FACTS:

In 1997, Santos filed a complaint against Atty. Llamas alleging that the latter has

not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data in his pleadings and only

indicates “IBP Rizal 25960” for the last three (3) years. It was later established that

Atty. Llamas’ last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid

or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees up to present. Atty. Llamas

admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without having paid his IBP

dues and that he misrepresented his membership in the IBP Chapter Rizal and

receipt number in his pleadings. He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a

“limited” practice and that he believes in good faith that he is exempt from payment

of taxes such as income tax as a senior citizen since 1992.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Llamas justified in not paying his IBP dues due to his “limited” practice and

being a senior citizen?

2|Page
 HELD:

No. A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only if he pays his IBP dues, and it

does not matter that his practice is “limited.” While it is true that senior citizens are

exempt from paying individual income taxes, provided that their annual income

does not exceed the property level, payment of association or membership dues

are not covered by this exemption. Also, Atty. Llamas is guilty of misrepresentation

for using the same IBP receipt number for three (3) years.

 Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebinian Tabang

AC No. 2505; February 21, 1992

FACTS:

On 3 October 1976, Respondent and Complainant contracted marriage at

Tigbauan, Iloilo. The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after

Respondent had finished his law studies (began in l977), and had taken the Bar

examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. Complainant

admits, though, that they had not lived together as husband and wife.

Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his

application, he declared that he was "single." He then passed the examinations

but Complainant blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No.

78, claiming that Respondent had acted fraudulently in filling out his application and,

thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral

character. Complainant also alleged that after Respondent's law studies, he became

aloof and "abandoned" her.

Respondent admitted that he is legally married and that since the marriage was not yet

made and declared public, he indicated that he was single in his application to take the

Bar examinations. Further, since they are no longer living together, when he applied for

3|Page
the 1981 Bar examinations. He honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was

single. Moreover, he believed their marriage to be void ab initio for failure to comply with

the five (5) years minimum cohabitation period and that they were both twenty-one (21)

years old at the time of the celebration of marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or nor Respondent is fit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities

belonging to the office of an attorney despite his misrepresentation of his civil status?

HELD:

No. A declaration in the application to take the bar that one is “single” when, in fact, one

had a subsisting marriage is in violation of Rule 7.01, even if the applicant believed that

his marriage was void ab initio. A person cannot presume invalidity of marriage without a

judicial declaration of nullity. The requirement of good moral character is not only a

condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also

essential for remaining in the practice of law.

 Remedios Ramirez Tapucar vs Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar

AC No. 4148; July 30, 1998

FACTS:

Parties are husband and wife and have eleven (11) children. Atty. Tapucar developed an

illicit affair with a woman not his wife and they had one child. Remedios Tapucar sought

the disbarment of her husband on the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct under

scandalous circumstances.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Tapucar may be disbarred under the aforementioned grounds?

4|Page
 HELD:

Yes. Such engagement in a scandalous affair is a serious flaw in his character. There is

perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality is

more imperative than that of law. He must possess positive qualities of decency,

truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously described as “moral

character.” Every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of

his profession, and thus improve not only the public regard for the Bar but also the

administration of justice. The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct,

whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral

character, in honesty, in probity, and good demeanor thus proving unworthy to continue

as an officer of the court.

 Irene Rayos-Ombac vs Atty. Orlando A. Rayos

AC No. 2884, January 28, 1998

FACTS:

Irene filed a petition for disbarment against his nephew, Att. Rayos who induced

her to withdraw all her money from the bank and entrust them to him so that they

will be excluded from the estate of her deceased husband with the intention to

preclude his other heirs from inheriting part of it. Atty. Rayos convinced Irene to

deposit the money via time deposit under his name in Unionbank where he works

allegedly to prevent the other heirs from tracking the same. Upon the maturity date

of the time deposit and demand of Irene, Atty. Rayos failed to return the money

and offered to reimburse her via installment thru checks which then bounced due

to insufficient funds. When complainant filed a case for estafa and disbarment

against him, the latter filed several suits against her to compel her to withdraw the

cases. IBP recommended that Atty. Rayos be suspended for two (2) years. He

5|Page
 then filed a Motion to Lift Suspension alleging that Irene executed an affidavit

withdrawing the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Rayos should be penalized of a two-year suspension based

on the foregoing facts.

HELD:

No. The two-year penalty is too mild. Respondent violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility, as well as his oath as an attorney when he deceived

his 85-year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money, and later refused to return

the same despite demand. Respondent's wicked deed was aggravated by the

series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw

the disbarment case she filed against him. Indeed, respondent's deceitful conduct

makes him unworthy of membership in the legal profession. The nature of the

office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This

qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession,

but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the

profession.

Considering the depravity of respondent's offense, we find the penalty

recommended by the IBP to be too mild. Such offense calls for the severance of

respondent's privilege to practice law not only for two years, but for life.

The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by

complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension

or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the

complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the

record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven.

6|Page
  Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-Nakpil vs Atty. Roberto L. Uy

AC No. 9115; September 17, 2014

FACTS:

Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. Pacita Uy y Lim

(Pacita). She was adjudged as the sole and exclusive legal heir of Pacita who was a

stockholder in several corporations when she died. In her Complaint, Rebecca, averred

that her alleged illegitimate halfcousin, Atty Uy, continuously failed and refused to comply

with the court order in SP 95-75201 declaring her as the successor-in-interest to all of

Pacita’s properties, as well as her requests for the accounting and delivery of the

dividends and other proceeds or benefits coming from Pacita’s stockholdings in the

aforementioned corporations. Also, respondent mortgaged a commercial property

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133606 (subject property) in favor of

Philippine Savings Bank despite an existing Trust Agreement wherein respondent, in his

capacity as President of URCI, already recognized her to be the true and beneficial owner

of the same. Accordingly, she demanded that respondent return the said property by

executing the corresponding deed of conveyance in her favor together with an inventory

and accounting of all the proceeds therefrom, but to no avail. In this relation, Rebecca

claimed that it was only after she had already instituted various legal actions and remedies

that respondent and URCI agreed to transfer the subject property to her pursuant to a

compromise agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Uy whould be held administratively liable?

7|Page
 HELD:

Yes. Though the dispute had been laid to rest and Rebecca withdrew her complaint,

nonetheless, the Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by, as

admitted, mortgaging the subject property, notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the

same. Regardless of the merits of his own claim, respondent should have exhibited

prudent restraint becoming of a legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even

to the slightest risk of committing a property violation nor any action which would

endanger the Bar's reputation. Verily, members of the Bar are expected at all times to

uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission

which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty,

and integrity of the legal profession. By no insignificant measure, respondent blemished

not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession. In other

words, his conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a guardian of

law and justice.

CASES RELATING TO CANON 16

 Leonila J. Cuanan vs Atty. Manuel L. Melo

AM NO. 2361; February 9, 1989

FACTS:

An affidavit-complaint, dated November 11, 1981, was filed by Leonila J. Licuanan with

the Office of the Court Administrator on 5 February 1982 against respondent, Atty. Manuel

L. Melo, for breach of professional ethics, alleging that respondent, who was her counsel

in an ejectment case filed against her tenant, failed to remit to her the rentals collected by

respondent on different dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he report to her

the receipt of said amounts. It was only after approximately a year from actual receipt that

8|Page
respondent turned over his collections to complainant after the latter, through another

counsel, acquired knowledge of the payment and had demanded the same.

In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted having received the payment of

rentals from complainant's tenant, Aida Pineda, as alleged in the complaint, but explained

that he kept this matter from the complainant for the purpose of surprising her with his

success in collecting the rentals.

ISSUE:

Did Atty. Melo violate his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:

Yes. His failure to inform his client that he had collected money from the client’s debtor,

despite repeated inquiries by the client, is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which

he swore observance, and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

His defense that he wanted to surprise his client with his success in collecting the debt

did not sit well with the Court which ruled that he violated his oath “not to delay any man

for money or malice.” The court resolved to disbar Atty. Melo.

 Maximo Dumadag vs Atty. Ernesto L. Lumaya

AC No. 2614; June 29, 2000

FACTS:

Atty. Lumaya was charged with unethical conduct by his client, Dumadag for failure

to inform the latter of actions taken in relation to a compromise agreement his client

had entered into with Spouses Abellanosa involving the sale of a parcel of land

and for failure to turn over funds which had come into his possession by reason of

this transaction. Under the agreement, failure of the Abellanosas to pay the agreed

amount on the agreed date would entitle Dumadag to possession of the property.

9|Page
 The Abellanosas failed in their undertaking. Instead of filing a Motion for Execution,

Lumaya connived with the sheriff to sell a portion of the property in the amount

covering the obligation of the Spouses, without the knowledge and consent of his

client. He also did not turn over the amount recovered to his client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Lumaya is fit to be a lawyer?

HELD:

No. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the

rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality

and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions

required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the

privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession,

has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its

members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well--- that is why respect and

fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members. Atty. Lumaya is suspended

indefinitely until such time as he has purged himself of his misconduct and

acknowledged the same by exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating

his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct

demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the court.

 Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero vs Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr.

AC No. 9872; January 28, 2014

FACTS:

Atty. Solidum was the retained counsel of Presbitero when he borrowed

P1,000,000.00 from them. His loan was secured with MOA, postdated checks and

10 | P a g e
 real estate mortgage. However, it turned out that Atty. Solidum misrepresented the

value of the property he mortgaged and the checks he issued were not drawn from

his account but from that of his son.

ISSUE:

Was Atty. Solidum unethical in borrowing money from his client?

HELD:

Yes. The Court find Atty. Solidum guilty of violating Rule 1.01, and 16.01 of the

Code and of Rule 16.04 which prohibits lawyers from borrowing money from their

client, unless the latter’s interests are fully protected.

 Angel L. Bautista vs Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales

AM No. 1625; February 12, 1990

FACTS:

Spouses Cadavedo and Atty. Layaca entered into an oral contingent fee

agreement securing to the latter one-half of a parcel of land subject of a civil case

with a provision that Atty. Layaca shall represent them and assume the litigation

expenses without providing for reimbursement.

ISSUE:

Was the agreement valid?

HELD:

No. Such an agreement is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics which

provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the

expenses of litigation. Al though a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses

11 | P a g e
 of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. Thus, such agreement

is considered to be champertous and is against public policy. It violates the

fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and his client, for which the former must

incur administrative sanctions

 Honorio Manalang and Florencio Cirillo vs Atty Francisco F. Angeles

AC No. 1558; March 10, 2003

FACTS:

Atty. Angeles was a lawyer for complainants in a case for overtime and separation

pay filed against the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant before the NLRC. A

judgment was rendered in their favor for P6,500.00. After the decision became final

a writ of execution was issued. However, without authority from his clients, Atty.

Angeles compromised the award and collected only P5,500.00.

ISSUE:

Was the compromise agreement entered into by Atty. Angeles proper?

HELD

No. Money claims due to workers, cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement or

compromise effected by counsel without the consent of the workers concerned. A

client has every right to expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken or

withheld from him, save by the rules of law validly applied. By compromising the

judgment without the consent of his clients, respondent not only went against the

stream of judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the

interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the maintenance and defense of

their rights.

12 | P a g e