CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
x x x x
Rule 16.03 -A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
"The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.
Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics."20chanrobleslaw
Respondent Atty. Francisco P. Duran is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon the finality of this Decision, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with.
A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016
DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ,
ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F. COT -OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016
ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR., Respondent.
Facts:
Atty. Delio M. Aseron (complainant) sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr.
(respondent) for his alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The facts showed that On January 25, 2009, the complainant figured in a vehicular accident which prompted him to file a case to claim for damages and send a letter pertaining thereto.
The respondent’s letter reply to this letter was couched in abusive, disrespectful language, malicious and unfounded accusations and besmirched his reputation.
Hence, this case.
Issue
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent liable for violation of the CPR.
HELD:
Yes. The respondent violated the CPR when he used intemperate language in his letter to the complainant.
Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the CPR provides:
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
In the present case, the respondent's actions failed to measure up to this Canon. Records show that he imputed to the complainant the use of his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass his clients during the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof or evidence to
support the same.
As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge against the complainant in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong language in pursuit of his duty to advance the interest of his client.
A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainants Emilio and Alicia Jacinto filed an administrative case against Atty. Emelie P.
Bangot, Jr. for the latter's unjust and dishonest treatment of them as his clients. Atty. Bangot executed a MOA between him and the Complainant to impress that his supposed attorney's fees would be paid on contingent basis, however, the MOA indicates that the payment thru real property is being made immediately effective upon execution of the agreement.
There is also apparent disproportion between the amount of attorney's fees and the effort or service already performed by him.
ISSUE:
Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants?
HELD:
The court held that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his clients.
A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness in dealing with his clients, and shall only charge fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. He should not excessively estimate the value of his professional services. In drawing up the terms of his professional engagement, he should not practice deceit. The clients are entitled to rescind the written agreement on his professional fees if the terms thereof contravened the true agreement of the parties.
A.C. No. 4269, October 11, 2016
DOLORES NATANAUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO, Respondent.
FACTS:
For the Court's consideration is Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino's (Atty. Tolentino) motion to have his disbarment case re-opened and reheard on the ground that he was denied his constitutional
right to due process.The case originated from a disbarment complaint1 filed by Dolores Natanauan (Dolores) accusing Atty. Tolentino of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Complainant Dolores alleged that she is a co-owner (with her siblings Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo [Dolores, et al.]) of a parcel of land with an area of about 50,000 square meters located in Tagaytay City.2 On January 3, 1978, they sold this land to Alejo Tolentino (Alejo) for P500,000.00. At the time, the title to the property had not yet been issued by the Land Registration Commission.3 The parties thus agreed that payment for the same shall be made in installments, as follows: P80,000.00 upon the execution of the contract and the remaining balance in two (2) installments, payable one (1) year after the issuance of the title and then
one (1) year thereafter.4chanrobleslaw
On August 9, 1979, and after the execution of the contract of sale between the parties, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1075935 in Alejo's favor. Despite several requests from Dolores, et al., Alejo, however, failed to settle the remaining obligation. Thus, on May 14, 1991, Dolores, et al. filed a case against Alejo and his wife Filomena, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1188, for the recovery of possession of immovable property, declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, and damages.6chanrobleslaw Issues
The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows: (1) whether there was a violation of Atty.
Tolentino's constitutional right to due process; and (2) whether Atty. Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct through the aforementioned falsifications in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath which would merit his disbarment and removal from the legal profession.
RULING
The Court resolves to deny Atty. Tolentino's motion and affirm the IBP Resolution with modification.
There was no denial of due process and opportunity to be heard.
Atty. Tolentino, like any respondent in a disbarment or administrative proceeding, is entitled to due process. The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, hence, denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one's day in court.48 As a rule, no denial of due process takes place where a party has been given an opportunity to be
heard and to present his case.49chanrobleslaw
In this case, respondent Atty. Tolentino is charged with violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons
1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Lawyer's Oath is a covenant every lawyer undertakes to become and remain part of the legal profession.63 It is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.64 It is a source of obligation and duty for every lawyer,65 which includes an undertaking to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities therein, and not to do falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court. All lawyers are obligated to uphold their Oaths lest they be subjected to administrative cases and sanctions.66chanrobleslaw
Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, on the other hand, read as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
Complainant sufficiently proved the charges of falsification against Atty. Tolentino.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roberto P.
Tolentino GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent Roberto P. Tolentino's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016
SPOUSES EDWIN B. BUFFE AND KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, Complainants, v. SEC.
RAUL M. GONZALEZ, USEC. FIDEL J. EXCONDE, JR., AND CONGRESSMAN ELEANDRO JESUS F. MADRONA, Respondent.
Facts
Karen M. Silverio-Buffe was appointed as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon province. She took her oath of office and informed the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Romblon that she was officially reporting for work beginning that day. Arsenio R.M. Almadin asked former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) to confirm the appointment of Silverio-Buffe but the same denied. Thus, complainant filed complaint alleging that former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona (Madrona), acting out of spite or revenge, persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr.
(Exconde) into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's oath of office.
Issue
Whether or not Gonzalez, Exconde, and Madrona should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint.
Ruling
No, the administrative case against Exconde and Madrona is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman, considering that complainants have filed a complaint before it on 12 February 2009. In the case of Gonzalez, his death on 7 September 2014 forecloses any administrative case against him.
A.C. No. 7388, October 19, 2016
ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS, Respondent.
Facts
This administrative case concerns the respondent, a retired judge who took on the case that he had intervened in during his incumbency on the Bench. The complainant was the counsel of record of the plaintiff in the case. The charge specified that the respondent was guilty of
"representing adverse interest, illegal practice of law, conduct and becoming as a former member of the bench and conduct unbecoming in violation of the canons of legal ethics with prayer for disbarment"
Issue
Won the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the respondent must be shown to have accepted the engagement or employment in relation to a
matter that, by virtue of his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016
ELIZABETH RECIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO I. FANDIÑO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 7927, October 19, 2016
SANDY V. DOMINGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. PALMARIN E. RUBIO AND ATTY. NICASIO T.
RUBIO, Respondents.
Facts:
The Philippine National Police (PNP) of Legazpi City filed a case for murder in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legazpi City arising from the killing of one Juan Edgardo Yap Bongalon on August 22, 2005. After due proceedings, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an infonnation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Legazpi City charging Ariel Dayap and four other persons who were then not identified with particularity as having acted in conspiracy with Dayap to
commit the murder.
Subsequently, Dayap executed an extrajudicial confession to the effect that he had conspired with four other persons, namely: the complainant, Mike Arena, Noli Marquez and Lorna Bongalon (the widow of the victim), with the last as the mastermind.
Upon request of assigned investigating prosecutor for her inhibition from conducting further preliminary investigation, because Lorna Bongalon had branded her as biased, the case was re-assigned to ACP Rubio (Atty. Nicasio T, Rubio), who ultimately rendered a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charge as to the four alleged co-conspirators upon finding that the extrajudicial confession of Dayap had been uncounselled.
Approving the resolution, CP Rubio (Atty. Palmarin E. Rubio) moved for the withdrawal of the information, but the RTC denied the motion to withdraw because the confession of Dayap already established probable cause. The respondents moved to reconsider the denial, but the
RTC persisted on its resolution.
On February 6, 2006, the Legazpi PNP presented additional evidence. Thus, a new complaint was filed and was assigned for preliminary investigation to ACP Rubio, who, after conducting the preliminary investigation, issued his resolution on February 27, 2006 finding probable cause for parricide against the complainant. The RTC then issued the warrants for the arrest of
the newly-charged accused.
Lorna Bongalon sought a reinvestigation, but the RTC did not give due course to her motion.
Accordingly, she moved for the deferment of her arraignment to enable her to appeal to the
DOJ by petition for review.
Acting favorably on Lorna Bongalon's petition for review, the Secretary of Justice directed CP Rubio on August 11, 2006 to cause with leave of court the withdrawal of the information for parricide against her, the complainant and their three co-accused, and to file in lieu thereof
another information for murder only against Dayap.
It appears that the respondents failed to actually send a copy of their motion for reconsideration to the Secretary of Justice despite furnishing all the parties copies of the motion; and that the motion for reconsideration was received by the DOJ only on April 12, 2007.1
According to the complainant, CP Rubio and ACP Rubio, by intentionally not sending to him a copy of their motion for reconsideration to the DOJ despite furnishing their motion for reconsideration to the other parties, and by belatedly submitting their motion for reconsideration to the DOJ, which eventually got a copy of it, acted fraudulently.
CP Rubio and ACP Rubio countered that their failure to send a copy to the complainant and to the DOJ was due to sheer oversight, explaining that the releasing clerk of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Legazpi City had not sent the motion for reconsideration despite furnishing copies thereof to all the other parties.
Based on the foregoing, the complainant initiated the complaint for disbarment against CP Rubio and ACP Rubio.
The IBP-CBD and the IBP Board of Governors recommended that the complaint for disbarment be dismissed for lack of merit because the complaint for disbarment had no application because the Secretary of Justice was not a superior court.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents CP Rubio and ACP Rubio are guilty of willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.
Held:
Affirming the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, the Court ruled citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 1992).
chanrobleslaw
The complainant's reliance on Section 27 was obviously misplaced. The observation of the Investigating Commissioner that the Secretary of Justice was not the same as the superior court referred to by the rule was correct. As such, the filing by the respondents of the motion for reconsideration was not a defiance or wilful disobedience to the lawful order of the superior court.
WHEREFORE, the Court ABSOLVES respondents Atty. Palmarin Rubio and Atty. Nicasio T.
Rubio of the charges of gross misconduct; and DISMISSES the complaint for disbarment for utter lack of merit and substance.
A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. ZALAMEA, Petitioners, v. ATTY.
RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA,
QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW FIRM, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners Zalamea brothers sought respondent Atty. de Guzman’s advice on the properties of their ailing mother. Later, Enrique convinced De Guzman to help in the reacquisition of another property. Due to Enrique’s lack of funds, De Guzman’s wife advanced the necessary amounts under the condition that the property will be transferred to the name of the corporation they agreed to form.
Eventually, the relationship of Zalamea brothers and the spouses turned sour. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client’s property which was subject of litigation.
Issue:
Whether or not the acquisition of a client’s property by the lawyer constitutes a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
The case was dismissed for lack of merit. The prohibition under Article 1491 of the Civil Code which the Zalamea’s invoke does not apply where the property purchased was not involved in litigation. True, they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their mother’s estate which does not involve the contested property. Clearly, the acquisition of the disputed property is a valid consequence of their business deal, not by lawyer-client relationship.
A.C. No. 11059, November 09, 2016
JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT, Complainant, v. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES AND ATTY.
TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant is a former Filipino citizen who subsequently became a naturalized British citizen.
On July 9, 2011, complainant's 2 sons, Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo Balingit, who were on board their respective motorcycles, figured in a head-on collision with the car driven by David A. Alizadeh . As a result, a case was filed against David.
Complainant engaged the legal services of respondents in the filing of the separate civil suit for damages and an administrative case against David.
Atty. Cervantes prepared and signed an Agreement embodying the terms of respondents'
Atty. Cervantes prepared and signed an Agreement embodying the terms of respondents'