Substitution of Attorneys
Content
Substitution of Attorneys
SPOUSES AQUINO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 109493, July 2, 1999
FACTS: A decision of the Regional Trial Court had become final and executory due to the failure of the
petitioners to file their appellants’ brief within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration on the ground that it was beyond the power of the court to modify the dismissal since the order
dismissing the appeal had become final and executory and an entry of judgment was already issued.
The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it served copies of resolutions upon their
former counsel de parte (Atty. Barican) and not to the counsel of record (Atty. Mala). Furthermore, the CA erred in
not serving the resolution to the petitioner despite knowledge of the death of their counsel of record.
ISSUE:
Was there a valid substitution of attorneys?
HELD:
NONE. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that the proper procedure for the withdrawal of
a lawyer as counsel in a case. It provides: Section 26 – Change of Attorneys – An attorney may retire at anytime
from an action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at
anytime from an action or special proceeding, without consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client
and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the
attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and the written
notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party x x x.”
Unless the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned section is complied with, the attorney of
record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings and who
should be held responsible for the case. In case of substitution of attorneys the following requisites must be
complied with: (1) written application for substitution; (2) written consent of the client; and (3) a written consent of
the attorney to be substituted. In case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must at
least be proof that notice of the motion for substitution has been served upon him in the manner prescribed by our
rules.
In the present case, petitioners admit that Atty. Barican represented them in the proceedings before the
lower court but that Atty. Mala substituted Atty. Barican when the case was elevated to the court of Appeals. No
proof was presented by the petitioners to show compliance with the above procedural requirements for the
withdrawal of Atty. Barican and the substitution of Atty. Mala in his stead; no written application for substitution or
written consent of the client was filed in court. The Certification made by Atty. Barican to the effect that he was the
former counsel of record of the petitioners but that he withdrew as their counsel is not controlling in the absence of
compliance with the above procedural requirements. It is therefore irrelevant that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy
of the resolution of the court of Appeals which dismissed their appeal since he was not the counsel of record and had
never entered his appearance as counsel of the petitioners.
7. Disbarment of lawyer requires clear and preponderant evidence
Danilo Conception vs. Daniel Fandino
A. C. No. June 21, 2000. 334 SCAR 136
PONENTE: Mendoza
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Fandiño for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice for
having notarized several documents without having been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. The
complaint was dismissed by the IBP because the documents submitted by complainant were mere photocopies.
HELD Although disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil or criminal nature, but rather investigations
by the Court into the conduct of its officers, the rules on evidence cannot be disregarded considering that the
exercise of one’s profession is at stake. Under the Best Evidence Rule, mere photocopies of the alleged notarized
documents is inadmissible in evidence, in the absence of evidence to prove that the original copies of the same were
lost or destroyed or cannot be otherwise produced. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, clear and preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty, with the burden of proof resting upon the complainant.
Procedure for Complaints against Lawyers
COTTAM vs. LAYSA
A.C. No. 4834, February 29, 2000
Facts: Respondent was being charged for gross misconduct and dishonesty. The Court, after finding merit to the
case, referred the case to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP Commissioner recommended that
respondent lawyer be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and that her appointment as Notary Public be
revoked whose decision was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Upon learning of such decision, Atty. Laysa
sought for reconsideration averring that no formal investigation was held and that she was not afforded a right to be
heard.
Issue:
Was the proper procedure followed?
Held:
NO. Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed the Court. If, at the outset, the
Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it may outrightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court
deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely
evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which
the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when
respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.
CRUZ vs. JACINTO
A.C. No. 5235, March 22, 2000
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Jacinto, being the lawyer of the complainants, requested the Cruz spouses to grant a
loan in behalf of Padilla, who he claimed to be his old friend. The spouses, believing and trusting the representations
of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk, authorized him to start preparing all the necessary documents relative to
the registration of the Real Estate Mortgage to secure the payment of the loan in favor of the Cruz spouses. Upon
maturity of the loan, the spouses demanded payment from Padilla by going to the address given by respondent but
there proved to be no person by that name living therein. They also discovered that the certificate of title given to
them by virtue of the mortgage was fake.
In their sworn affidavits, the spouses claim that they relied much on reassurances made by
Atty. Jacinto as to Padilla’s credit, considering that he was their
lawyer. There was also an unrebutted evidence that respondent had ordered his secretary and
housemaid to falsify the signatures of the notary public and the Deputy Register of Deeds respectively to
make it appear that the real estate mortgage contract was duly registered and thus binding.
Issue:
Is the respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
YES. Respondent represented complainants in the loan transaction. By his own admission, he was the
one who negotiated with the borrower, his long-time friend and a former client. He acted not merely as an agent but
as a lawyer of complainants, thus, the execution of the real estate mortgage contract, as well as its registration and
annotation on the title were entrusted to him. In fact, respondent even received his share in the interest earnings
which complainants realized from the transaction. His refusal to recognize any wrongdoing or carelessness by
claiming that he is likewise a victim when it was shown that the title to the property, the registration of the real estate
mortgage contract, and the annotation thereon were all feigned, will not at all exonerate him.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the measure of good faith which an attorney is
required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard than is required in business
dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to be sure
that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his
office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no
presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney's favor. Further, his
fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected
of him.
Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully as well as to protect the
rights and interests of his clients and by his deceitful actuations constituting violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibilities must be subjected to disciplinary measures for his own good, as well as for the good o the entire
membership of the Bar as a whole.
Professional Misconduct
JUDGE ANGELES vs. UY
A.C. No. 5019, April 6, 2000
Facts:
In a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan City
charged Atty. Uy Jr. with violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The accused manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect in the criminal case handled
by respondent under the sala of judge complainant. Accused further alleged that she paid P20,000.00 directly to the
private complainant and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Uy, Jr., the lawyer of the private
complainant and conformably produced in open court the receipt for such payment signed by no less than the
aforesaid lawyer. However, private complainant manifested that she did not receive the amount paid to his lawyer,
herein respondent, thereby constraining the court to direct respondent to turn over the money to private complainant
which he received in trust for the client. Atty. Uy however argued that his client did not like to accept the money but
the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, the herein private complainant, who manifested in open
court her willingness to accept the money. The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the latter
argued that he kept it in his office. Consequently, the Court suspended the proceedings to enable Atty. Uy to get the
money from his law office which is located only at the second floor of the same building where this court is located.
However, respondent did not show up anymore.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
YES. The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high degree of
fidelity and good faith. It is designed "to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from
being done for the protection of the client." Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
"a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession." Furthermore,
Rule 16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client." The Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit: "The lawyer should refrain from any
action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report and account for the
P16,500 he had received from Trajano on behalf of his client. Although the amount had been entrusted to
respondent, his client revealed during the hearing that she had not yet received it. Worse, she did not
even know where it was.
The records do not clearly show whether Atty Uy had in fact appropriated the said amount; in fact, his
client acknowledged that she had received it. They do show, however, that respondent failed to promptly report that
amount to her. This is clearly a violation of his professional responsibility. It is settled that money collected by a
lawyer in favor of his clients must be immediately turned over to them and that lawyers are bound to promptly
account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct.
Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the rights of the clients have been prejudiced, but whether the
lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards of the bar. In this case, respondent has not done so.
Gross Misconduct and/or Deceit of a Lawyer
SALONGA vs. HILDAWA
Adm. Case No. 5105, August 12, 1999
Facts:
Respondent lawyer was a retained counsel of STAVA, a vendors association, for
a number of years and represented the association in an ejectment case against several
stallholders at the Alabang market. The accrued rentals which was deposited with the court was
withdrawn by respondent lawyer without the authority from the association. To make matters
even worse, respondent lawyer appeared as counsel of the opponent association of STAVA.
Issue:
Is respondent lawyer guilty of gross misconduct and/or deceit?
Held:
YES. Respondent lawyer has transgressed Canon 21 which requires a lawyer to
preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation ceases,
a mandate that he has placed in possible jeopardy by agreeing to appear as counsel for a party
his client has previously contented with in a case similarly involving said parties.
Violation of Lawyer's Oath & Disregard of the Canons Of Professional Ethics
SAURA, ET AL. vs. AGDEPPA
Adm. Case No. 4426, February 17, 2000
Facts:
Respondent handled the settlement case involving a piece of property owned in common by the petitioners
with other siblings. It appears that the negotiations for the settlement of the property dragged on for three years.
Petitioners learned that the administrators of the property, with the assistance of the respondent, who in fact
notarized the Deed of Sale, sold the property without the knowledge and participation of petitioners. Petitioners
allege that despite repeated demands, respondent have refused to disclose the amount of the sale. The petitioners
have thus been constrained to institute criminal and civil actions.
However, at the scheduled hearing, there was no appearance for the respondent despite receipt of the
copy of the petition. To date, no response has been forth coming from respondent.
Issues: (1.) Should the petitions against respondent be dismissed as according to her, she was not accorded her
right to due process?
(2.) Is the respondent correct in saying that she could not answer the charges against her without
divulging certain pieces of information in violation of the attorney-client privilege?
Held:
(1.) NO. The respondent was given notice on various occasions but she chose to ignore them and failed to
exercise her right to be heard.
Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that: “SECTION 30.
Attorney to be
heard before removal or suspension charges against him, to produce witness in his behalf, and to be. — No attorney
shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has full opportunity upon reasonable
notice to answer the heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the
accusations, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte."
Since respondent repeatedly ignored the notices sent to her by this Court, the Court cannot be expected to wait
indefinitely for her answer.
(2.) NO. The request for the information regarding the sale of the property and to account for the proceeds is not
a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court provides:
"SECTION 24.
Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify
as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b)
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity."
The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the
amount of the sale or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the right to ask for such information since
they own the property as co-heirs of the late Ramon E. Saura and as co-administrators of the property. Hence,
respondent cannot refuse to divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the attorney-client
relationship
Negligence
TORRES vs. ORDEN
A.C. No. 4646, April 6, 2000
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint against respondent for his failure to properly discharge his duty as
counsel when he failed to submit an appellee’s brief before the Court of Appeals for the case which he handles on
behalf of the complainants despite the notice. Subsequently, the appealed case was submitted for decision sans
appellee’s brief. As the result of which, the appellate court decided not in favor the complainant.
Issue:
Is the respondent counsel guilty of negligence?
Held:
YES. We note that inspite of Atty. Orden's repeated declarations which would create the unmistakable
impression that he had in fact prepared and completed his client's brief, no such brief was ever submitted to the
Supreme Court
We are convinced that Atty. Amado Orden, despite his avowals has not prepared any such brief. Worse,
we are just as convinced that Atty. Orden has displayed a glaring ignorance of procedures and a grossly negligent
failure to keep abreast of the latest resolution and circulars of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court in regard
to appeals. To be sure as a practitioner, Atty. Orden ought to have kept himself attuned to the Rules of Court and the
latest jurisprudence and rulings of the Supreme Court. Briefly stated, respondent Atty. Orden has not been honest
with the Supreme Court. Worse, he has not been honest with his client and worst with himself.
Grossly Immoral Conduct
TUCAY vs. TUCAY
A.C. No. 5170, November 17, 1999
FACTS:
Complainant Lilia Tucay and respondent Atty. Manuel Tucay took their vows in 1963. In 1993, while
respondent’s first marriage is still subsisting, respondent lawyer contracted another marriage with one Tuplano.
Respondent left the conjugal dwelling to cohabit with the latter.
Complainant Tucay seeks the latter’s disbarment.
ISSUE:
Should respondent Manuel Tucay be disbarred for carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman?
HELD:
YES. The records of the administrative case against Atty. Tucay indeed show that respondent has been
carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely
low regard for the fundamental ethics of his professional. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties,
or an odious deportment unbecoming of an attorney. The grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules
of Court, including deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in 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 the practice of law, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as a n attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so , are not preclusive in
nature even as they are broad enough as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a lawyer does or commits
in his professional career or in his private life. A lawyer at no time must be wanting in probity and moral fiber which
not only are conditions precedent to his entrance to, but are likewise essential demands for his continued
membership, in a great and noble profession.
Gross Immorality
UI vs. BONIFACIO
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by the complainant, Leslie Ui against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the grounds of immorality, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with
Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June 1998 when respondent discovered
Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him.
Issue: Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law?
Held:
NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the
legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral character is a sine qua
non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. A lawyer
may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude”.
A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was amiss in
her relationship with Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and to opinion of good and respectable member of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral, that is it
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships
. . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards.
Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just
that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard
of the legal profession.
SPOUSES AQUINO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 109493, July 2, 1999
FACTS: A decision of the Regional Trial Court had become final and executory due to the failure of the
petitioners to file their appellants’ brief within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration on the ground that it was beyond the power of the court to modify the dismissal since the order
dismissing the appeal had become final and executory and an entry of judgment was already issued.
The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it served copies of resolutions upon their
former counsel de parte (Atty. Barican) and not to the counsel of record (Atty. Mala). Furthermore, the CA erred in
not serving the resolution to the petitioner despite knowledge of the death of their counsel of record.
ISSUE:
Was there a valid substitution of attorneys?
HELD:
NONE. Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that the proper procedure for the withdrawal of
a lawyer as counsel in a case. It provides: Section 26 – Change of Attorneys – An attorney may retire at anytime
from an action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at
anytime from an action or special proceeding, without consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client
and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the
attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and the written
notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party x x x.”
Unless the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned section is complied with, the attorney of
record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings and who
should be held responsible for the case. In case of substitution of attorneys the following requisites must be
complied with: (1) written application for substitution; (2) written consent of the client; and (3) a written consent of
the attorney to be substituted. In case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must at
least be proof that notice of the motion for substitution has been served upon him in the manner prescribed by our
rules.
In the present case, petitioners admit that Atty. Barican represented them in the proceedings before the
lower court but that Atty. Mala substituted Atty. Barican when the case was elevated to the court of Appeals. No
proof was presented by the petitioners to show compliance with the above procedural requirements for the
withdrawal of Atty. Barican and the substitution of Atty. Mala in his stead; no written application for substitution or
written consent of the client was filed in court. The Certification made by Atty. Barican to the effect that he was the
former counsel of record of the petitioners but that he withdrew as their counsel is not controlling in the absence of
compliance with the above procedural requirements. It is therefore irrelevant that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy
of the resolution of the court of Appeals which dismissed their appeal since he was not the counsel of record and had
never entered his appearance as counsel of the petitioners.
7. Disbarment of lawyer requires clear and preponderant evidence
Danilo Conception vs. Daniel Fandino
A. C. No. June 21, 2000. 334 SCAR 136
PONENTE: Mendoza
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Fandiño for gross misconduct, deceit and malpractice for
having notarized several documents without having been appointed or commissioned as a notary public. The
complaint was dismissed by the IBP because the documents submitted by complainant were mere photocopies.
HELD Although disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are not civil or criminal nature, but rather investigations
by the Court into the conduct of its officers, the rules on evidence cannot be disregarded considering that the
exercise of one’s profession is at stake. Under the Best Evidence Rule, mere photocopies of the alleged notarized
documents is inadmissible in evidence, in the absence of evidence to prove that the original copies of the same were
lost or destroyed or cannot be otherwise produced. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, clear and preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty, with the burden of proof resting upon the complainant.
Procedure for Complaints against Lawyers
COTTAM vs. LAYSA
A.C. No. 4834, February 29, 2000
Facts: Respondent was being charged for gross misconduct and dishonesty. The Court, after finding merit to the
case, referred the case to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. IBP Commissioner recommended that
respondent lawyer be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and that her appointment as Notary Public be
revoked whose decision was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Upon learning of such decision, Atty. Laysa
sought for reconsideration averring that no formal investigation was held and that she was not afforded a right to be
heard.
Issue:
Was the proper procedure followed?
Held:
NO. Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed the Court. If, at the outset, the
Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it may outrightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court
deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely
evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which
the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when
respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.
CRUZ vs. JACINTO
A.C. No. 5235, March 22, 2000
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Jacinto, being the lawyer of the complainants, requested the Cruz spouses to grant a
loan in behalf of Padilla, who he claimed to be his old friend. The spouses, believing and trusting the representations
of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk, authorized him to start preparing all the necessary documents relative to
the registration of the Real Estate Mortgage to secure the payment of the loan in favor of the Cruz spouses. Upon
maturity of the loan, the spouses demanded payment from Padilla by going to the address given by respondent but
there proved to be no person by that name living therein. They also discovered that the certificate of title given to
them by virtue of the mortgage was fake.
In their sworn affidavits, the spouses claim that they relied much on reassurances made by
Atty. Jacinto as to Padilla’s credit, considering that he was their
lawyer. There was also an unrebutted evidence that respondent had ordered his secretary and
housemaid to falsify the signatures of the notary public and the Deputy Register of Deeds respectively to
make it appear that the real estate mortgage contract was duly registered and thus binding.
Issue:
Is the respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
YES. Respondent represented complainants in the loan transaction. By his own admission, he was the
one who negotiated with the borrower, his long-time friend and a former client. He acted not merely as an agent but
as a lawyer of complainants, thus, the execution of the real estate mortgage contract, as well as its registration and
annotation on the title were entrusted to him. In fact, respondent even received his share in the interest earnings
which complainants realized from the transaction. His refusal to recognize any wrongdoing or carelessness by
claiming that he is likewise a victim when it was shown that the title to the property, the registration of the real estate
mortgage contract, and the annotation thereon were all feigned, will not at all exonerate him.
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the measure of good faith which an attorney is
required to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard than is required in business
dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to be sure
that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his
office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no
presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney's favor. Further, his
fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected
of him.
Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully as well as to protect the
rights and interests of his clients and by his deceitful actuations constituting violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibilities must be subjected to disciplinary measures for his own good, as well as for the good o the entire
membership of the Bar as a whole.
Professional Misconduct
JUDGE ANGELES vs. UY
A.C. No. 5019, April 6, 2000
Facts:
In a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan City
charged Atty. Uy Jr. with violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The accused manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect in the criminal case handled
by respondent under the sala of judge complainant. Accused further alleged that she paid P20,000.00 directly to the
private complainant and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Uy, Jr., the lawyer of the private
complainant and conformably produced in open court the receipt for such payment signed by no less than the
aforesaid lawyer. However, private complainant manifested that she did not receive the amount paid to his lawyer,
herein respondent, thereby constraining the court to direct respondent to turn over the money to private complainant
which he received in trust for the client. Atty. Uy however argued that his client did not like to accept the money but
the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, the herein private complainant, who manifested in open
court her willingness to accept the money. The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the latter
argued that he kept it in his office. Consequently, the Court suspended the proceedings to enable Atty. Uy to get the
money from his law office which is located only at the second floor of the same building where this court is located.
However, respondent did not show up anymore.
Issue:
Is the respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
Held:
YES. The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high degree of
fidelity and good faith. It is designed "to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of that kind from
being done for the protection of the client." Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
"a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession." Furthermore,
Rule 16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client." The Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit: "The lawyer should refrain from any
action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client.
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report and account for the
P16,500 he had received from Trajano on behalf of his client. Although the amount had been entrusted to
respondent, his client revealed during the hearing that she had not yet received it. Worse, she did not
even know where it was.
The records do not clearly show whether Atty Uy had in fact appropriated the said amount; in fact, his
client acknowledged that she had received it. They do show, however, that respondent failed to promptly report that
amount to her. This is clearly a violation of his professional responsibility. It is settled that money collected by a
lawyer in favor of his clients must be immediately turned over to them and that lawyers are bound to promptly
account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct.
Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the rights of the clients have been prejudiced, but whether the
lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards of the bar. In this case, respondent has not done so.
Gross Misconduct and/or Deceit of a Lawyer
SALONGA vs. HILDAWA
Adm. Case No. 5105, August 12, 1999
Facts:
Respondent lawyer was a retained counsel of STAVA, a vendors association, for
a number of years and represented the association in an ejectment case against several
stallholders at the Alabang market. The accrued rentals which was deposited with the court was
withdrawn by respondent lawyer without the authority from the association. To make matters
even worse, respondent lawyer appeared as counsel of the opponent association of STAVA.
Issue:
Is respondent lawyer guilty of gross misconduct and/or deceit?
Held:
YES. Respondent lawyer has transgressed Canon 21 which requires a lawyer to
preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation ceases,
a mandate that he has placed in possible jeopardy by agreeing to appear as counsel for a party
his client has previously contented with in a case similarly involving said parties.
Violation of Lawyer's Oath & Disregard of the Canons Of Professional Ethics
SAURA, ET AL. vs. AGDEPPA
Adm. Case No. 4426, February 17, 2000
Facts:
Respondent handled the settlement case involving a piece of property owned in common by the petitioners
with other siblings. It appears that the negotiations for the settlement of the property dragged on for three years.
Petitioners learned that the administrators of the property, with the assistance of the respondent, who in fact
notarized the Deed of Sale, sold the property without the knowledge and participation of petitioners. Petitioners
allege that despite repeated demands, respondent have refused to disclose the amount of the sale. The petitioners
have thus been constrained to institute criminal and civil actions.
However, at the scheduled hearing, there was no appearance for the respondent despite receipt of the
copy of the petition. To date, no response has been forth coming from respondent.
Issues: (1.) Should the petitions against respondent be dismissed as according to her, she was not accorded her
right to due process?
(2.) Is the respondent correct in saying that she could not answer the charges against her without
divulging certain pieces of information in violation of the attorney-client privilege?
Held:
(1.) NO. The respondent was given notice on various occasions but she chose to ignore them and failed to
exercise her right to be heard.
Section 30, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that: “SECTION 30.
Attorney to be
heard before removal or suspension charges against him, to produce witness in his behalf, and to be. — No attorney
shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has full opportunity upon reasonable
notice to answer the heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the
accusations, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte."
Since respondent repeatedly ignored the notices sent to her by this Court, the Court cannot be expected to wait
indefinitely for her answer.
(2.) NO. The request for the information regarding the sale of the property and to account for the proceeds is not
a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Rule 130, Section 24 (b) of the Rules of Court provides:
"SECTION 24.
Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons cannot testify
as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b)
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an
attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity."
The information requested by petitioners is not privileged. The petitioners are only asking for the disclosure of the
amount of the sale or account for the proceeds. Petitioners certainly have the right to ask for such information since
they own the property as co-heirs of the late Ramon E. Saura and as co-administrators of the property. Hence,
respondent cannot refuse to divulge such information to them and hide behind the cloak of the attorney-client
relationship
Negligence
TORRES vs. ORDEN
A.C. No. 4646, April 6, 2000
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint against respondent for his failure to properly discharge his duty as
counsel when he failed to submit an appellee’s brief before the Court of Appeals for the case which he handles on
behalf of the complainants despite the notice. Subsequently, the appealed case was submitted for decision sans
appellee’s brief. As the result of which, the appellate court decided not in favor the complainant.
Issue:
Is the respondent counsel guilty of negligence?
Held:
YES. We note that inspite of Atty. Orden's repeated declarations which would create the unmistakable
impression that he had in fact prepared and completed his client's brief, no such brief was ever submitted to the
Supreme Court
We are convinced that Atty. Amado Orden, despite his avowals has not prepared any such brief. Worse,
we are just as convinced that Atty. Orden has displayed a glaring ignorance of procedures and a grossly negligent
failure to keep abreast of the latest resolution and circulars of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court in regard
to appeals. To be sure as a practitioner, Atty. Orden ought to have kept himself attuned to the Rules of Court and the
latest jurisprudence and rulings of the Supreme Court. Briefly stated, respondent Atty. Orden has not been honest
with the Supreme Court. Worse, he has not been honest with his client and worst with himself.
Grossly Immoral Conduct
TUCAY vs. TUCAY
A.C. No. 5170, November 17, 1999
FACTS:
Complainant Lilia Tucay and respondent Atty. Manuel Tucay took their vows in 1963. In 1993, while
respondent’s first marriage is still subsisting, respondent lawyer contracted another marriage with one Tuplano.
Respondent left the conjugal dwelling to cohabit with the latter.
Complainant Tucay seeks the latter’s disbarment.
ISSUE:
Should respondent Manuel Tucay be disbarred for carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman?
HELD:
YES. The records of the administrative case against Atty. Tucay indeed show that respondent has been
carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely
low regard for the fundamental ethics of his professional. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a patent disregard of his duties,
or an odious deportment unbecoming of an attorney. The grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules
of Court, including deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in 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 the practice of law, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as a n attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so , are not preclusive in
nature even as they are broad enough as to cover practically any kind of impropriety that a lawyer does or commits
in his professional career or in his private life. A lawyer at no time must be wanting in probity and moral fiber which
not only are conditions precedent to his entrance to, but are likewise essential demands for his continued
membership, in a great and noble profession.
Gross Immorality
UI vs. BONIFACIO
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by the complainant, Leslie Ui against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the grounds of immorality, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with
Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June 1998 when respondent discovered
Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him.
Issue: Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law?
Held:
NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the
legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral character is a sine qua
non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. A lawyer
may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude”.
A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was amiss in
her relationship with Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and to opinion of good and respectable member of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral, that is it
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships
. . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards.
Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just
that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard
of the legal profession.
