BARA LIDASAN v. COMELEC, GR No. L-28089, 1967-10-25 Second.

  The title of the bill is to be couched in a language

sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those
Facts: concerned of the import of the single subject thereof.
Republic Act 4790 The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is
misleading
"An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of
Ruling:
Lanao del Sur"
In determining sufficiency of particular title its substance rather
June 18, 1966... but which includes barrios located in another
than its form should be considered and the purpose of the
province - Cotabato
constitutional requirement, of... giving notice to all persons
Municipality of Dianaton, Province of interested should be, kept in mind by the court.

Lanao del Sur The title - "An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton, in the
Province of Lanao del
Togaig and Madalum just mentioned are within the municipality
of Buldon, Province of Cotabato, and that Bayanga, Sur"[8] - projects the impression that solely the province of
Langkong,... Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Lanao del Sur is affected by the creation of Dianaton.
Tiongko Colodan, and Kabamakawa, are parts and parcel of
Such title did not inform the members of Congress as to the fall
another municipality, the municipality of Parang,... also in the
impact of the law; it did not apprise the people in the towns of
Province of Cotobato and not of Lanao del Sur.
Buldon and
as the statute stands, twelve barrios - in two municipalities in
Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself that
the province of Cotabato - are transferred to the province of
part of their territory is being taken away from their towns and
Lanao del Sur. This brought about a change in the boundaries
province and added to the adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur;
of the two provinces
it kept the public in... the dark as to what towns and provinces
September 7, 1967, the Office of the President., through the were actually affected by the bill.
Assistant Executive Secretary... recommended... he operation
Transfer of a sizeable portion of territory from one province to
of the statute be suspended until "clarified by correcting
another of necessity involves reduction of area, population and
legislation."
income of the first and the corresponding increase of those of
September 20, 1967... should be implemented unless declared the other.  This is as important as the... creation of a
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. municipality.  And yet, the title did not reflect this fact.

triggered the present original action for certiorari and The lumping together of... barrios in adjacent but separate
prohibition by Bars Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the provinces under one statute is neither a natural nor logical
detached portion of Parang, Cotabato and a qualified voter for consequence of the creation of the new municipality of
the 1967 elections. Dianaton.

Republic Act 4790... be declared unconstitutional; and that We rule that Republic Act 4790 is null and void.
Comelec's resolutions of August 15, 1967 and September 20,
The general rule is that where part of a statute is void, as
1967 implementing the same for electoral purposes, be
repugnant to the Organic Law, while another part is valid, the
nullified.
valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be
Petitioner relies upon the constitutional requirement enforced.

"[n]o bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more With the known premise that Dianaton was created upon the
than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the basic considerations of progressive... community, large
bill." aggregate population and sufficient income, we may not now
say that Congress intended to create Dianaton with only 9 - of
Respondent's stance is that the change in boundaries of the the original 21 - barrios, with, a seat of government still left to
two provinces resulting in "the substantial diminution of the be conjectured.
territorial limits" of Cotabato province is "merely the incidental
legal results of the definition of the boundary" of the Republic Act 4790 is thus inseparable and it is accordingly null
municipality of and void in its totality.

Dianaton and that, therefore, reference to the fact that portions Petitioner is a qualified voter.
in Cotabato are taken away "need not be expressed in the title
Since by... constitutional direction the purpose of a bill must be
of the law."
shown in its title for the benefit, amongst others, of the
Issues: community affected thereby,[16] it stands to reason to say that
when the constitutional right to vote on the part of... any citizen
First.  Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under one of that community is affected, he may become a suitor to
statute, of heterogeneous... subjects challenge the constitutionality of the Act as passed by
Congress.
For the reasons given, we vote to declare Republic Act 4790 2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his
null and void and to prohibit respondent Commission from identity is privileged.
implementing the same for electoral purposes. 3) Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an
attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said
Principles: name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the
Republic Act.  4790
client’s name is privileged.
"SECTION 1. Barrios Togaig, Madalum, Bayanga, Langkong, That client identity is privileged in those instances where a
Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo, Tabangao, Tiongko, strong probability exists that the disclosure of the client's
Colodan,... Kabamakawan, Kapatagan, Bongabong, Aipang, identity would implicate the client in the very criminal activity for
Dagowan, Bakikis, Bungabung, Losain, Matimos and which the lawyer’s legal advice was obtained.
Magolatung, in the Municipalities of Butig... and Balabagan,
Province of Lanao del Sur, are separated from said
municipalities and constituted into a distinct and independent
municipality of the same province to be known as the
Municipality of Dianaton, Province of REBECCA J. PALM vs. Atty. FELIPE ILEDAN JR., A.C. No.
8242, October 2, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court
Lanao del Sur.  The seat of government of the municipality
dismissed the complaint for the disbarment of respondent
shall be in Togaig.
lawyer.
SEC. 2. The first mayor, vice-mayor and councilors of the new
municipality shall be elected in the nineteen hundred sixty- May I digest below the doctrinal pronouncements of the Court
seven general elections for local officials. on the exceptions to the rule of confidentiality of lawyer-client
relationship and the rule against conflict of interest with former
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval." clients. Thus:

X x x.

The case before the Court is a disbarment proceeding filed by

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan Rebecca J. Palm (complainant) against Atty. Felipe Iledan, Jr.
(respondent) for revealing information obtained in the course of
PCGG want to build up their case against Eduardo Coujuanco an attorney-client relationship and for representing an interest
for the anomalies in the COCO LEVY FUNDS. PCGG wants which conflicted with that of his former client, Comtech
petitioners divulge that Cojuangco indeed was a client of their Worldwide Solutions Philippines, Inc. (Comtech).
firm, as well as other information regarding Cojuangco.
X x x.
Issue: Can the PCGG compel petitioners to divulge its client’s
name?
Violation of the Confidentiality
Held: NO. of Lawyer-Client Relationship

As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
shrouded in mystery. The general is that a lawyer may not
invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets
of his client. of his client even after the attorney-client relationship is
terminated. (Emphasis supplied)
1) the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2) the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client We agree with the IBP that in the course of complainant’s
relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege consultations, respondent obtained the information about the
does not attach until there is a client. need to amend the corporate by-laws to allow board members
3) the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the outside the Philippines to participate in board meetings through
relationship. teleconferencing. Respondent himself admitted this in his
Answer.
Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing
party should, as a general rule, know his adversary. “A party However, what transpired on 10 January 2004 was not a board
suing or sued is entitled to know who his opponent is.” He meeting but a stockholders’ meeting. Respondent attended the
cannot be obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces. meeting as proxy for Harrison. The physical presence of a
stockholder is not necessary in a stockholders’ meeting
Except: because a member may vote by proxy unless otherwise
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists provided in the articles of incorporation or by-laws. Hence,
that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in there was no need for Steven and Deanna Palm to participate
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. through teleconferencing as they could just have sent their
proxies to the meeting. Comtech any confidential information acquired while he was
still Comtech’s retained counsel. Further, respondent made the
In addition, although the information about the necessity to representation after the termination of his retainer agreement
amend the corporate by-laws may have been given to with Comtech. A lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client
respondent, it could not be considered a confidential does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s
information. The amendment, repeal or adoption of new by- employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose
laws may be effected by “the board of directors or trustees, by upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client’s interests only on
a majority vote thereof, and the owners of at least a majority of matters that he previously handled for the former client and not
the outstanding capital stock, or at least a majority of members for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has
of a non-stock corporation.” It means the stockholders are terminated.
aware of the proposed amendments to the by-laws. While the
power may be delegated to the board of directors or trustees,
there is nothing in the records to show that a delegation was
made in the present case. Further, whenever any amendment
or adoption of new by-laws is made, copies of the amendments
Donald Dee vs C.A. [G.R. No. 77439. August 24, 1989]
or the new by-laws are filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and attached to the original articles of 16OCT
incorporation and by-laws. The documents are public records
and could not be considered confidential. Ponente: REGALADO, J.

FACTS:
It is settled that the mere relation of attorney and client does
not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must Petitioner and his father went to the residence of private
intend the communication to be confidential. Since the respondent, accompanied by the latter’s cousin, to seek his
proposed amendments must be approved by at least a majority advice regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of
of the stockholders, and copies of the amended by-laws must petitioner’s brother, Dewey Dee, to Caesar’s Palace, a well-
be filed with the SEC, the information could not have been known gambling casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. Private
intended to be confidential. Thus, the disclosure made by respondent personally talked with the president of Caesar’s
respondent during the stockholders’ meeting could not be Palace at Las Vegas, Nevada. He advised the president that
considered a violation of his client’s secrets and confidence for the sake and in the interest of the casino it would be better
within the contemplation of Canon 21 of the Code of to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. The president
Professional Responsibility. told him that if he could convince Ramon Sy to acknowledge
the obligation, Dewey Dee would be exculpated from liability
for the account. Upon private respondent’s return to Manila, he
Representing Interest in Conflict conferred with Ramon Sy and the latter was convinced to
With the Interest of a Former Client acknowledge the indebtedness. In August, 1981, private
respondent brought to Caesar’s Palace the letter of Ramon Sy
owning the debt and asking for a discount. Thereafter, the
The IBP found respondent guilty of representing an interest in account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never
conflict with that of a former client, in violation of Rule 15.03, bothered him.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides: Having thus settled the account of petitioner’s brother, private
respondent sent several demand letters to petitioner
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest demanding the balance of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full Petitioner, however, ignored said letters.
disclosure of the facts.
ISSUE:

Whether or not there is an attorney-client relationship between

We do not agree with the IBP.
parties.
In Quiambao v. Bamba, the Court enumerated various tests to HELD:
determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of
interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his YES. Court affirmed the decision of the defendant Court of
former client any confidential information acquired through their Appeals. Costs against the petitioner.
connection or previous employment. The Court has ruled that
what a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the RATIO:
client’s confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will [T]here is no question that professional services were actually
injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously rendered by private respondent to petitioner and his family.
represented him. Through his efforts, the account of petitioner’s brother, Dewey
Dee, with Caesar’s Palace was assumed by Ramon Sy and
We find no conflict of interest when respondent represented petitioner and his family were further freed from the
Soledad in a case filed by Comtech. The case where apprehension that Dewey might be harmed or even killed by
respondent represents Soledad is an Estafa case filed by the so-called mafia. For such services, respondent Mutuc is
Comtech against its former officer. There was nothing in the indubitably entitled to receive a reasonable compensation and
records that would show that respondent used against this right cannot be concluded by petitioner’s pretension that at
the time private respondent rendered such services to
petitioner and his family, the former was also the Philippine
consultant of Caesar’s Palace.

A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable Ordonio vs. Eduarte
compensation for services rendered at the special instance and
request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good
faith trying to serve and represent the interests of his client, the
Facts:
latter is bound to pay his just fees.
This is a complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Josephine Palogan-Eduarte. Antonia Ulibari filed with the RTC,
Branch 22, Cabagan, Isabela, a case for annulment of a
document against her children. The case was handled by Atty.
Nakpil vs. Valdez, 186 SCRA 758 (1998) Henedino Eduarte, herein respondent's husband, until his
appointment as RTC judge on October 26, 1984. His wife, Atty.
FACTS: Josephine Palogan-Eduarte, took over.

On August 22, 1985, decision was rendered in favor of Antonia

Ulibari. Except for Dominga Velasco-Ordonio, one of the
For lack of funds, Napkil requested Atty. Valdez to purchase children of Antonia Ulibari and complainant in the instant case,
the Moran property for him. Valdez would keep the property in the rest of the defendants did not appeal. On June 13, 1987,
thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Title was while said case was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals,
then issued in respondent’s name. Antonia Ulibari conveyed some parcels of her land to her
children in the form of deeds of absolute sale, prepared and
notarized by herein respondent. Significantly, on the same day,
When Jose Nakpil died, Respondent acted as the legal counsel Antonia Ulibari also conveyed 20 hectares of land to herein
and accountant of his widow. Respondent excluded the Moran respondent and her husband as their Attorney's fees for legal
property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and transferred his services rendered. All the titles of the lands subject of the
title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty deeds of absolute sale and the deed of conveyance however
Corporation. remained in the name of Antonia Ulibari. On April 4, 1988,
Dominga Velasco-Ordonio filed this complaint for disbarment
against herein respondent on the basis of an affidavit executed
by her mother Antonia Ulibari on March 2, 1988 stating that
ISSUE:
affiant never conveyed the subject parcel of land to respondent
as her attorney's fees and that the deeds of absolute sale
executed in favor of her children were not known to her (and
Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the that she received no consideration therefor).
respondent Atty. Valdes and the complainant.
On August 10, 1989, the Investigation Commissioner submitted
a report finding the charges to be true and recommending a
one-year suspension of the respondent from the practice of
HELD: law. Issue: Whether Antonia Ulibari was defrauded into signing
the Deed of Conveyance transferring to her lawyer (herein
respondent) the subject parcel of land containing 298,420
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one square meters as the latter's attorney's fees Whether
(1) year. respondent violated any law in preparing and notarizing the
deeds of absolute sale in making

it appear that there were considerations, when in truth there

RATIO: were none Ruling: It is clear from Antonia Ulibari's affidavit and
deposition that she never conveyed the said land to her lawyer
as attorney's fees. Respondent is hereby ordered suspended
Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of assets and from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, and, for
liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the having stated falsehoods in the four (4) deeds of absolute sale
claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict she prepared and notarized, in violation of the lawyer's oath
between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate. respondent is also ordered suspended from the practice or law
for a period of another six (6) months, resulting in a total period
on one year.
In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondent’s law firm Even granting for the sake argument that Antonia Ulibari
was to contest the claims of these two creditors but which knowingly and voluntarily conveyed the subject property in
claims were prepared by respondent’s accounting firm. It was favor of the respondent and her husband, the respondent, in
respondent’s duty to inhibit either of his firms from said causing the execution of the Deed of Conveyance during the
proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict of interest. pendency of the appeal of the case involving the said property,
has violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits lawyers complaint against defendant, to be declared absolute owner of
from "acquiring by assignment property and rights which may the land and to be restored to possession thereof with
be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by damages was bereft of any factual or legal basis. Article 1491
virtue of their profession." of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code)
prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons, by reason of the
In the case at bar, the property was already in actual litigation relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from
first in the lower court and then in the Court of Appeals. acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or
indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction,"
Whether the deed of conveyance was executed at the instance
as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators;
of the client driven by financial necessity or of the lawyers is of
(4)public officers and employees; judicial officers and
no moment.
employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others
The act constitutes malpractice, even if the lawyer had especially disqualified by law.
purchased the property in litigation. The prohibition applies
when the lawyer has not paid money for it and the property
was merely assigned to him in consideration of legal services
rendered at a time when the property is still the subject of a
pending case. Respondent has manifestly violated that part of SANTIAGO v FOJAS
her oath as a lawyer that she shall not do any falsehood. Not
only that. A.C. No. 4103. September 7, 1995

In preparing the documents which do not reflect the true DAVIDE, JR., J.
transaction, respondent has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule
10.01.
FACTS:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; nor shall be mislead or allow the court to be
mislead by any artifice. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) declared
complainants’ illegal expulsion of Salvador from Far Easter
University Faculty Association. Salvador sought for damages
but Atty. Fojas moved to dismiss it for res judicata and lack of
jurisdiction because it was already decided by Med-Arbiter and
RUBIAS VS. BATILLER G.R. No. L-35702 (May 29, 1973) it is only cognizable by the DOLE.

FACTS:
On August 31, 1964, Domingo Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to
Complainants were directed to file their answer within a non-
recover the ownership and
extendible period of fifteen days from notice. Instead of filing an
possession of certain portions of a lot located in Barrio General
answer, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and
Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, which he bought from his father-in-
dismissal of the case.
law, Francisco Militante in 1956. The lot was occupied by
Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said portions of the lot on
two occasions—in 1945 and 1959. Rubias also prayed for
damages and attorney’s fee. Meanwhile, in his answer, Batiller The complainants were declared in default, and Salvador was
claims that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always authorized to present his evidence ex-parte and won damages
been in actual, open, and continuous possession since time and attorney’s fees.
immemorial under claim and ownership of the portions of the
lot in question. Batiller claims that due to the allegations, he
has suffered moral damages in the amount of P2,000 and a
sum of P500 for attorney’s fees.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
What is the status of the sale? Whether the Atty. Fojas committed culpable negligence, and
breached Canon 18 and 15 Rule 18.03 and 15.05 of Code of
RULING: Professional Responsibility.
The stipulated facts and exhibits of record indisputably
established plaintiff’ s lack of cause of action and justified the
outright dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff’s claim of
ownership to the land in question was predicated on the sale HELD:
thereof for P2,000.00 made in 1956 by his father-in-law,
YES. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention,
Francisco Militante, in his favor, at a time when Militante’s
diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance
application for registration thereofhad already been dismissed
and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
by the Iloilo land registration court and was pending appeal in
the Court of Appeals. Hence, there was no right or title to the He is not excused by reasons of pressure and large volume of
land that could be transferred or sold by Militante’s purported legal work. the negligence cannot be excused by a “losing
sale in 1956 in favor of plaintiff. Manifestly, then plaintiff’s
cause”. Even if it was a losing case, he should be honest to the Legal Ethics
client.
–
Reprimanded only.
Duty of the Prosecutor

In May 1935, Atty. Fortunato Suarez was riding a train on his

way to Calauag, Tayabas. Apparently he was very vocal and
he was despising the abuses made by government 44 officers.
STEMMERIK V. MAS Incidentally, Lieutenant Vivencio Orais was aboard the train.
Orais arrested Suarez and charged him with sedition. Orais
however later moved for the dismissal of the case upon the
instruction of his superior. Thereafter, Suarez filed a case
FACTS: Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine
against Orais for arbitrary detention. Provincial Fiscal Ramon
property due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his
Valdez moved for the dismissal of the case due to insufficiency
intention, to which the latter advised him that he could legally
of evidence. Suarez asked Valdez to inhibit and later asked for
buy such properties. Atty Mas even suggested a big piece of
a special prosecutor to take his place as he alleged that Valdez
property that he can buy, assuring that it is alienable. Because
does not have the courage to prosecute the case. Valdez
of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary requirements
was then replaced by special prosecutor Jacinto Yamzon
and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he back to Denmark.
who also found that there is insufficient evidence to
After some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found prosecute the case. Eventually, the case was dismissed by
the owner of the big piece of property and stated the price of Judge Servillano Platon on the ground that there is
the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas the insufficiency of evidence. Suarez appealed the dismissal of the
money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the necessary case but his appeal was denied on the ground that mandamus
paperwork. When Stemmerik asked when he could have the is the proper remedy.
property registered in his name, Atty Mas can’t be found. He
Hence, Suarez filed this Mandamus case to compel Platon to
returned to the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to
reinstate the case.
his horror, was informed that aliens couldn’t own Philippine
Lands and that the property was also inalienable. Stemmerik ISSUE:
the filed a DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD Whether or not the case should be reinstated.
ruled that Atty Mas abused the trust and confidence of
Stemmerik and recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP HELD:
Board of Governors adopted such recommendations.
No. The fiscals are well within their rights not to push through
with the case if they find the evidence to be insufficient. The
prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary
ISSUE/S: W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred. HELD: YES! party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose
Disbarred. obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very
RATIO: Disobeyed the Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition
definite sense the servant of the law, thetwo fold aim of which
Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution prohibits foreigners
is that guilt shall not escape or innocence shall suffer
from buying Philippine Lands. Respondent, in giving advice
that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of
basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents that he
knew were void and illegal. Deceitful Conduct By advising
complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire ANGEL ALBANO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PERPETUA
real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that COLOMA, respondent.
the property was alienable, respondent deliberately deceived FACTS:
his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and This proceeding for disbarment was filed by complainant Angel
confidence reposed in him by complainant. Illegal Conduct By Albano against
pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by respondent Perpetua Coloma, a member of the Philippine Bar.
In a letter dated June 20,
complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent
1962 addressed to this Court, complainant alleged that during
committed a fraudulent act that was criminal
the Japanese occupation
his mother, Delfina Aquino, and he retained the services of
respondent as counsel for
them as plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4147 of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte.
UAREZ VS PLATON After which came the accusation that after liberation and long
after the courts had been
69 Phil 556 reorganized, respondent failed to expedite the hearing and
termination of the case, as a
–
result of which they had themselves represented by another Subsequently annotated to the TCT,. Camarino wanted to
lawyer. This annul such, consent was vitiated because did not know it was
notwithstanding, it was claimed that respondent intervened in an irrevocable power of attorney.
the case to collect her
attorney's fees. It was then alleged that during the hearing they Nocom alleged that it cannot be cancelled unilaterally, alleged
were surprised when that he paid for it....Camarinos filed motion for summary
respondent presented in exhibit a document showing that they judgment stating that sicne Nocom admitted to the existence of
as well as their co- the irrevocable power of attorney...summary judgment proper
plaintiffs in the case promised to pay her a contingent fee of because only resolve
33-¹/3% of whatever could
be recovered whether in land or damages. WON it was coupled w/ interest and
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Perpetua Coloma disbarred fro the legal WON it is irrevocable. Allege that there is not issue as to the
profession. contents of the irrevocable power of atty
RULING:
No, the charge against respondent Perpetua Coloma, member
of the Philippine H: facts not subject motion for summary jdugment
Bar, is hereby dismissed. 2 requisites:
The Solicitor General could thus rightfully assert that if there 1. No genuine issue as to material facts
was anyone guilty of 1. Party moving for summary judgment entitled
bad faith in this case "it is complainant and his co-plaintiffs in to judgment by law
Civil Case No. 4147 who,
after benefiting from the valuable services of respondent in
said case, tried to renege on
their agreement for the payment of the latter's contingent GENATO V. SILAPANA.C. No. 4078 July 14, 2003Third
attorney's fees by dismissing Division
her as their counsel after she had already won for them said
case in the trial court and FACTS:In July 1992, respondent asked if he could rent a
the Court of Appeals, and later, by attempting to impugn the small office space in complainant’s building in Quezon City
authenticity and for his law practice.Complainant acceded and introduced
genuineness of their written agreement for the payment of respondent to Atty. Benjamin Dacanay, complainant’s retained
attorney's fees, . . . ."12 lawyer, who accommodated respondent in the building and
He was of the opinion then that even if for purposes of said
made him handle some of complainant’s cases.Hence, the
case the findings in judicial
start of the legal relationship between complainant and
cases could not be considered binding "it is safe to conclude,
from a review of the respondent.The conflict between the parties started when
evidence in said court proceedings taken together with the respondent borrowed P200,000.00 from complainant which
evidence before us in this he intended to use as down payment for the purchase of a new
case, that respondent may be exonerated herein."13 With such car.In return, respondent issued to complainant a postdated
a conclusion of the check in the amount ofP176,528.00 to answer for the six (6)
Solicitor General, this Court, to repeat, is in full agreement. months interest on the loan.He likewise mortgaged to
Counsel, any counsel, who is worthy of his hire, is entitled to complainant his house and lot in Quezon City but did not
be fully recompensed for surrender its title claiming that it was the subject of
his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains and reconstitution proceedings before the Quezon City Register of
with his skill, acquired at Deeds.With the money borrowed from complainant,
tremendous cost not only in money but in the expenditure of respondent purchased a new car.However, the document of
time and energy, he is
sale of the car was issued in complainant’s name and
entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any
financed through City Trust Company. In January 1993,
attempt on the part of a
client to escape payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after respondent introduced to complainant a certain Emmanuel
putting forth the best that Romero.Romero likewise wanted to borrow money from
is in him to secure justice for the party he represents, he complainant.Complainant lent Romero the money and, from
himself would not get his due. this transaction, respondent earned commission in the
Such an eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. It views amount ofP52,289.90.Complainant used the commission to
with disapproval any and pay respondent’s arrears with the car financing
every effort of those benefited by counsel's services to deprive firm.Subsequently, respondent failed to pay the amortization on
him of his hard-earned the car and the financing firm sent demand letters to
honorarium. Such an attitude deserves condemnation. complainant.Complainant tried to encash respondent’s
postdated check with the drawee bank but it was dishonored
as respondent’s account therein was already
Distinguish from Rule 34 – Nocom v. Camerino GR 182984 closed.Respondent failed to heed complainant’s repeated
Feb 10, 2009    demands for payment.Complainant then filed a criminal case
against respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
Facts: 22 and a civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate
Camarino were agricultural tenants w/ right to redeem.
mortgage.In a Resolution, dated October 27, 1993, the Court
Allegedly executed an irrevocable Power of Atty to sell parcels
referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the
of land.
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On August 3, 2002, the Board of Governors of the
IBP approved the report of the investigating
commissioner finding the respondent guilty as charged
and recommending his suspension from the practice of law Thereafter, even before respondent counsel had prepared the
for one (1) year.ISSUE:Whether or not respondent appellant’s brief and contrary to their agreement that the
committed a breach of trust and confidence by imputing remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case,
to complainant illegal practices and disclosing complainant’s Atty. Dealca demanded an additional payment from
alleged intention to bribe government officials in connection complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4,000.00.
with a pending case.RULING:The Supreme Court affirmed the
findings and recommendation of the IBP. The privilege against
disclosure of confidential communications or information Prior to the filing of the appellant’s brief, respondent counsel
is limited only to communications which are legitimately again demanded payment of the remaining balance of
and properly within the scope of a lawful employment of a P3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so,
lawyer.It does not extend to those made in contemplation of a respondent lawyer withdrw his appearance as complainant’s
crime or perpetration of a fraud. Respondent’s explanation counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity.
that it was necessary for him to make the disclosures in
his pleadings fails to satisfy the court. The disclosures were not
indispensable to protect his rights as they were not pertinent
Thus this complaint charging respondent with misconduct and
to the foreclosure case.It was improper for the respondent
praying that he be “sternly dealt with administratively.”
to use it against the complainant in the foreclosure case as it
was not the subject matter of litigation and respondent’s
professional competence and legal advice were not being
attacked in said case.A lawyer must conduct himself, ISSUE: W/N respondent committed misconduct and violated
especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in provisions of the CPR?
a manner that is beyond reproach.His relationship with his
clients should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith and fairness.Court agrees with the evaluation of the IBP
HELD:
and finds that respondent’s allegations and disclosures in
the foreclosure case amount to a breach of fidelity
sufficient to warrant the
Yes. The Court finds respondent’s conduct unbecoming of a
imposition of disciplinary sanction against him.However, the member of the legal profession. Under Canon 22 of the Code
recommended penalty of one (1) year suspension of of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall withdraw his
respondent from the practice of law seems to be services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in
disproportionate to his breach of duty considering that a the circumstances. Although he may withdraw his services
review of the records of this Court reveals that this is the first when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
administrative complaint against him.Wherefore, Atty. Essex services, under the circumstances of the present case, Atty.
L. Silapan is ordered suspended from the practice of Dealca’s withdrawal was unjustified as complainant did not
lawfor a period of six (6) months deliberately fail to pay him the attorney’s fees. In fact,
complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation.
Respondent’s contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a
member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him
was only P3,500.00. rule 20.4 of Canon 20, mandates that a
FELICISIMO M. MONTANO vs. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
PHILIPPINES and Atty. JUAN S. DEALCA compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum
A.C. No. 4215 May 21, 2001 owed to him by complainant, respondent lawyer failed to act in
accordance with the demands of the Code.

FACTS:
The Court, however, does not agree with complainant’s
contention that the maximum penalty of disbarment should be
imposed on respondent lawyer. In the present case, reprimand
The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as
is deemed sufficient.
his counsel in collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a
case pending before the Court of Appeals docketed wherein
the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant.
Respondent was REPRIMANDED.

The parties agreed upon attorney’s fees in the amount of

P15,000.00 fifty percent (50%) of which was payable upon
acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the
termination of the case. Accordingly, complainant paid FELIZARDO S. OBANDO and the ESTATES of JOSE
respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing 50% of the FIGUERAS and DOÑA ALEGRIA STREBEL VDA. DE
attorney’s fee. FIGUERAS, petitioners, vs. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS and
AMIGO REALTY CORPORATION as represented by was a conflict between the Order dismissing the civil case and
ANTONIO A. KAW, respondents. the previous actions of the trial court.

PRINCIPLES:

(1) a lawyer’s standing in a case remains, until a substitute RULING 1. (!!!!!) P: When Atty Yuseco filed MTD on January
takes over pursuant to Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of 27,1998, he no longer represented the R; basis: Eduardo's
Court; Manifestation and Motion on January 8, 1998, dispensing with
said counsel's services in the proceedings in view of a
(2) a trial court may act upon a motion to dismiss at any time a Compromise Agreement made with Petitioner SC:
ground therefor becomes available, even after a responsive Representation continues until the court dispenses with the
pleading to the complaint has already been filed; services of counsel (Sec. 26, Rule 138, ROC); Counsel may be
validly substituted only if the following requisites are complied
(3) a civil case initiated by an estate administrator may be
with: (1) new counsel files a written application for substitution
dismissed upon a showing that the said administrator’s
(2) the client's written consent is obtained (3) the written
appointment as such has been revoked by the probate court;
consent of the lawyer to be substituted is secured (4) if the
and
written consent can no longer be obtained, then the application
(4) the dismissal of an action may be made after the ground for substitution must carry proof that notice of the motion has
therefor becomes known, even if the trial court has refused to been served on the attorney to be substituted in the manner
do so earlier when that ground was not yet available. required by the Rules. Here, Eduardo did not dismiss Atty.
Yuseco - Eduardo actually manifested that he had been tricked
by Petitioner into signing the Manifestation and Motion and
Compromise Agreement. Also, the filing of the MTD was not
FACTS Alegria Strebel Figueras, with her stepsons Eduardo
prejudicial but beneficial to Eduardo, hence, he had no reason
and Francisco, filed a petition for settlement of the intestate
to complain. At the discretion of the court, an attorney who has
estate of her deceased husband Jose Figueras. She died while
already been dismissed by the client is allowed to intervene in
case was pending so Eduardo assumed administration (of the
a case in order to protect his client's rights. If there had been
joint estates of Jose and Alegria). Shortly after the proceedings
any irregularity, it should have been raised by the respondents,
in both intestacies have begun, petitioner Felizardo (Alegria's
not the petitioners. 2. P: MTD may only be submitted vefore the
nephew) filed a Petition for Probate (court process by which a
filing of a responsive pleading, hence, Eduardo's filing of an
will is proved valid or invalid) of Alegria's Last Will and
MTD after Obando rested his case was already too late. SC:
Testament. Allegedly, the will bequeathed to petitioner and
Period to file MTD depends on the circumstances of the case.
other Obando relatives clan properties left by Sps. Figueras.
ROC requires generally that MTD should be filed within the
The probate case and the intestate proceedings were
reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading.
consolidated, and Petitioner was appointed as Eduardo's co-
Exceptions are allowed, that even after an answer has been
administrator of the joint estates. Upon examination, it was
filed, a defendant can still filed MTD on the ff grounds: (1) lack
found that the Will was forged, as the signatures in the will +
of jurisdiction (2) litis pendencia (3) lack of cause of action (4)
standard signatures were not made by the same person.
discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a
Petitioner was indicted and convicted of estafa through
ground for dismissal In this case, respondents did not waive
falsification of a public document. Eduardo filed motion for
their right to move for the dismissal of the case based on
authority to sell the parcels of land; DENIED by probate court
Obando's lack of legal capacity. It was only after Obando was
in Feb 20 1990. Eduardo still sold the same to Amigo Realty
convicted of estafa that he was removed as co-administrator,
Corp. June 4 1992 - Obando (as co-admin + universal heir of
Hence it was only then that this ground became available to
Alegria) filed a Complaint for the nullification of the sale,
the respondents. (Meaning not considered waived). If the
against Eduardo and Amigo Realty. Dec. 17 1997 - probate
plaintiff (P) loses his capacity to sue during the pendency of the
court removed Obando as coadministrator of the joint estate of
case, the defendant should be allowed to file MTD even after
Sps. Figueras. [ January 8 1998 - Allegedly, counsel of the
the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a responsive
respondent Figueras was dismissed] January 27, 1998 -
pleading. 3. P: Premature for TC to dismiss action for
respondents filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss (the action for
annulnent because Obando's conviction for estafa is still on
nullification) after Obando rested his case, based on the latter's
appeal. SC: Argument has no bearing on the dismissal of the
loss of legal standing to pursue the case Feb. 11 1993(?? o
case. Obando derived his power to represent the estate of the
1998) - TC granted MTD and dismissed petition for annulment
deceased couple from his appointment as coadministrator.
of sale CA affimed RTC order  held: that the probate of the When the probate court removed him from office, he lost that
alleged will had not yet been decided on the merits did not authority. Since he lacked the legal capacity to sue on behalf of
change the fact that the probate court had removed Petitioner the Figueras estates, he could not continue prosecuting the
as co-administrator. civil case. Thus the TC properly granted MTD. The fact that the
conviction of Obando and his removal from administration are
on appeal only means that his legal standing could be restored;
ISSUES 1. (!!!!!) Whether TC could act on a motion filed by a thus, the civil case was correctly dismissed without prejudice.
lawyer who was allegedly no longer Eduardo's counsel of On the other hand, Obando has yet to show that he has
record 2. Whether a MTD filed after the responsive pleadings regained administration of the Figueras estates. Noteworthy
were already made can still be granted. 3. Whether the also is the fact that his removal from office was predicated not
conviction of Obando for estafa through falsification and the only on his conviction for a crime, but also on his failure to
revocation of his appointment as administrator constitute render an accounting of the rentals of a property leased to the
sufficient grounds to dismiss the civil case. 4. Whether there Community of Learners. 4. P: On March 4, 1993, R's earlier
MTD was denied by the TC, on the ground that the criminal acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
case and the petition to remove him as co-administrator are of an attorney’s duty to
still pending determination, hence, the Court will continue to
recognize his right to institute the case for annulment in his give undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or would invite
capacity as judicial administrator, unless removed. Based on suspicion of
teh abovementioned, TC capriciously departed from its rulings
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that
when it granted the MTD on Feb 11 1993. SC: No conflict, they
duty.
were based on different grounds. First MTD was denied
because at that time, Petitioner still had capacity to sue as co- Having agreed to represent one of the opposing parties first,
administrator (pending petition to remove him). Second MTD the lawyer
was granted because the probate court already removed him
from his office as coadministrator. = CHANGE IN HIS LEGAL should have known that there was an obvious conflict of
CAPACITY. PETITION DENIED. Resolution affirmed. interests, regardless of his

alleged belief that they were all on the same side. It cannot be
denied that the

dismissed employees were the complainants in the same

HORNILLA V. SALUNAT cases in which Castro was

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY V. ARQUILLO one of the respondents.

FACTS

Northwestern University filed an administrative case against

Atty. Arquillo for
Case Digest: Bobby Rose Frias vs. Atty. Carmelita
representing conflicting interests in a NLRC case. The Bautista-Lozada
complaint alleges that Atty.
A.C. No. 6656
Arquillo appeared as counsel for both the petitioner and the (Formerly CBD-98-591)
respondent (Castro) in May 4, 2006
the labor case. Atty. Arquillo, as a defense, contended that the
FACTS: Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was
petitioners and
formerly found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the
respondent he represented in the labor case belonged to the Code of Professional Responsibility and of willfully disobeying
same side as the latter a final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals.  She
was suspended from the practice of law for two years.
party was absolved from liability. Hence, there was no conflict
of interests.  

ISSUE Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of

the Court, contending that, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of
W/N Atty. Arquillo represented conflicting interests. Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the complaint against
HELD her was already barred by prescription. She also asserts that
her December 7, 1990 loan agreement with complainant
YES. When a lawyer represents two or more opposing parties,
complied with Rule 16.04 because the interest of complainant
there is a
was fully protected.
conflict of interests, the existence of which is determined by
 
three separate tests: (1)
ISSUES: a. Whether or not the administrative complaint is
when, in representation of one client, a lawyer is required to
barred by prescription?
fight for an issue or
 
claim, but is also duty-bound to oppose it for another client; (2)
when the acceptance               b. Whether or not Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the CBD-IBP is valid?
of the new retainer will require an attorney to perform an act
that may injuriously  
affect the first client or, when called upon in a new relation, to RULING: a. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of
use against the first one the CBD-IBP provides:
any knowledge acquired through their professional connection;  
or (3) when the
SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, respondent failed to provide a clear audited financial report of
suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) all the properties turned over by the complainant to the
years from the date of the professional misconduct. respondent. Complainant filed an affidavit-complaint against
respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
  Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment
of respondent.
 
ISSUE: WON a lawyer-client relationship was created.
However, as early as 1967, the Court has held that the defense
of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings RULING: YES.
against lawyers. And in the 2004 case of Heck v.
Santos, the Court declared that an administrative complaint After due hearing, IBP Investigating Commissioner Patrick M.
against a member of the bar does not prescribe. Velez issued a Report and Recommendation finding that a
lawyer-client relationship was established between respondent
  and complainant despite the absence of a written contract. The
absence of a written contract will not preclude the finding that
       Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense,
there was a professional relationship between the parties.
respondent raised it only at this late stage. We presume she
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the
was familiar with that rule yet she failed to invoke it at the
employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or
earliest opportunity. Instead she opted to insist on her
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice
innocence.
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
      matter pertinent to his profession.

b. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD- Given the situation, the most decent and ethical thing which
IBP which provides for a prescriptive period for the filing respondent should have done was either to advise complainant
of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the to engage the services of another lawyer since she was
settled ruling of the Court. It should therefore be struck down already representing the opposing parties, or to desist from
as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires. acting as representative of Multitel investors and stand as
counsel for complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both
  because that would amount to double-dealing and violate our
ethical rules on conflict of interest.
 Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is hereby declared null and void.

Belleza v. Macasa | AC No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

November 12, 2017

ROLANDO B. PACANA, JR., Complainant, 
vs. Dolores C. Belleza, Complainant, v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa,
ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZ, Respondent. Respondent

A.C. No. 8243               July 24, 2009 Adm. Case No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

FACTS:

Rolando Pacana, Jr. (complainant) filed an administrative Facts:

complaint against Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez (respondent)
On 10 November 2004, complainant went to see respondent
charging the latter with flagrant violation of the provisions of the
on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant
Code of Professional Responsibility.
wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection
Complainant worked for Multitel (later renamed as Precedent) with the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was
and earned the ire of investors after becoming the assignee of arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for
majority of the shares of stock of Precedent and after being alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent
appointed as trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million agreed to handle the case for P30,000.
Pesos (P30,000,000.00) deposited at Real Bank.

Complainant sought the advice of respondent but no Retainer

The following day, complainant made a partial payment of
Agreement was executed. Atty. Lopez gave regular advice,
P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua. On 17
helped prepare standard quitclaims, solicited money and
November 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She
properties from complainant to pay the creditors and even
paid the P5,000 balance on 18 November 2004. Both
discussed a collection case for the company.
payments were also made thru Chua. On all three occasions,
Soon, complainant noticed that respondent began to avoid respondent did not issue any receipt.
communicating with him. Complainant then wrote to
respondent a letter formally asking for a full accounting of all
the money, documents and properties given to the latter but
On 21 November 2004, respondent received P18,000 from
complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the
provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. Again, CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT
respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant went WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not
remit the amount to the court.
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote
himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort) to
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and
respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her. confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy
Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his
complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s
services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to
ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client,
save by the rules of law legally applied.

Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for

disbarment against respondent in the Negros Occidental
chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In an A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client
order dated 13 July 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline undertakes to serve his client with competence and diligence.
(CBD) required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such
from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer,
extension of time to file an answer dated 10 August 2005, he impliedly makes the following representations: that he
simply brushed aside the complaint for being "baseless, possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability
groundless and malicious" without, however, offering any other lawyers similarly situated possess; that he will exert his
explanation. He also prayed that he be given until 4 September best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation
2005 to submit his answer. entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and
diligence in the use of his skill and in the application of his
knowledge to his client’s cause; and that he will take all steps
necessary to adequately safeguard his client’s interest.
Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second and
third extensions of time praying to be given until 4 November
2005 to submit his answer. He never did.
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
Issue: litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the
ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying
Was the Respondent in violation of the Code of Professional
out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical.
Responsibility due to his negligence of the case of the
respondent’s son?

If his client’s case is already pending in court, a lawyer must

actively represent his client by promptly filing the necessary
Held:
pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled
For grossly neglecting the cause of his client, Atty. Macasa is hearings. This is specially significant for a lawyer who
guilty. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case represents an accused in a criminal case.
against complainant’s son. Such undertaking imposed upon
him the following duties:
The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the
Constitution. However, this right can only be meaningful if the
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his lawyer:
OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE
The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
due process which basically means that a person must be
heard before being condemned. The due process requirement
is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xxxxxxxxx
The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the
shall render him liable. accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a
counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and
xxxxxxxxx
acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by
the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of the
case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the
accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing
the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing
jurisprudence.

The right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a

fundamental right. Without counsel, the right to a fair trial itself
would be of little consequence, for it is through counsel that the
accused secures his other rights. In other words, the right to
counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the

performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his
client. Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly
decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory
representation.

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against

complainant’s son and receiving his attorney’s fees,
respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective
and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes,
respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on
account of respondent’s continued inaction, complainant was
compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorney’s Office.
Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of
complainant’s son was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice
complainant’s son, it also deprived him of his constitutional
right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount
entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional
liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latter’s
constitutional right to bail.

The Supreme Court found the Respondent GUILTY not only of

dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for prejudicing
Francis John Belleza’s (the Complainant’s son) right to counsel
and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of the
Constitution, and for
violating Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01,
16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore
DISBARRED from the practice
of law effective immediately.

Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant

Dolores C. Belleza the
amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 with interest at 12% per
annum from the date of
promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is
further DIRECTED to
submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten
days from payment.
Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution.