A.C. No.

10164

March 10, 2014

STEPHAN
BRUNET
and
vs.
ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent

VIRGINIA

ROMANILLOS

BRUNET, Complainants,

FACTS:
This is in regard to availing the services of the said Atty. Guaren for the titling of the residential lot they
acquired, Atty. Guaren accepted the case for a fee of 10,000.00 including expenses relative to the
proceedings. He advanced 1000.00 which the spouses dutifully gave, then asked for another 6,000.00. Also
the spouses provided the documents needed pertaining to the titling of the land. The complainants
constantly reminded the respondent, but the latter tells them that its already in progress. Because of the
slow progress the spouses became bothered so they demanded the return of the money they paid, Atty.
Guaren agreed provided that the amount of 5,000.00 be deducted for his professional fees

Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship between
them, Atty. Guaren made a special appearance against them in a case pending before the Metropolitan
Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).
Issue: WON the respondent violated Rule 12.03, Canon 12, Canon 17, Rule 18.03, and Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
Held: YES, The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which
duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of
justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or
what they owe to themselves. In this case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000 as
partial payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the
titling of complainants lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with
competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. Thus, Atty. Guaren violated
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for
six months.

A.C. No. 9116

March 12, 2014

NESTOR
B.
FIGUERAS
and
vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

BIENVENIDO

VICTORIA,

JR., Complainants,

FACTS:
Complainants who are members of the Congressional Village Homeowners Association, Inc. filed a Complaint
for Disbarment against Atty. Jimenez for violating Rule 12.03, Canon 12, Canon 17, Rule 18.03, and Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his negligence in handling an appeal in a case involving the
Association and willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court.
Respondents allegation that the complainants does not have the personality to file a case against him since
they were not his client and the suit his instituted to harass him. Also during the handling of the case by a
junior associate, when the respondent found out the omissions committed he personally took charge of the
case expenses came from his personal fund, thus does not constitute negligence on his part.
ISSUE:
WON the complainants have the personality to institute a disbarment case against the respondent
HELD:
YES, The Supreme Court held that the complainants have personality to file the disbarment case. In Heck v.
Judge Santos, the Court held that [a]ny interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary
proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that
the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed
in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in
disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment
is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Further, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer engaged to
represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence. In
failing to file the appellants brief on behalf of his client, Atty. Jimenez had fallen far short of his duties as
counsel as set forth in Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every
member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. However, the Supreme Court only suspended Atty. Jimenez
from the practice of law for one month

A.C. No. 5359

March 10, 2014

ERMELINDA LAD VOA. DE DOMINGUEZ, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact,

PICHON,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR., Respondent.

VICENTE

A.

FACTS:
Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez (complainant) was the widow of the late Felipe Domiguez
who died in a vehicular accident in Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck
owned by the Municipality of Caraga. Aggrieved, complainant decided to file charges against the Municipality
of Caraga and engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. (Atty. Agleron). On three (3)
occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and received from complainant the following amounts for the payment of
filing fees and sheriffs fees, to wit: (1) June 3, 1996 -P3,000.00; (2) June 7, 1996 -Pl,800.00; and September 2,
1996 - P5,250.00 or a total of P10,050.00. After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no complaint was filed
by Atty. Agleron against the Municipality of Caraga.
Atty. Agleron was charged with violating Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. The Supreme Court held that once a lawyer takes up the cause of
his client, he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his clients cause with
diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated Canon 18.03 of the CPR

HELD:
YES, In this case, Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the complaint despite the fact that it was already
prepared and signed. He attributed his non-filing of the appropriate charges on the failure of complainant to
remit the full payment of the filing fee and pay the 30% of the attorneys fee. Such justification, however, is
not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from liability. As stated, every case that is entrusted to a lawyer
deserves his full attention whether he accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that complainant had not
remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should have found a way to speak to his client and inform him
about the insufficiency of the filing fee so he could file the complaint. Atty. Agleron obviously lacked
professionalism in dealing with complainant and showed incompetence when he failed to file the appropriate
charges. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence renders him
liable for disciplinary action such as suspension ranging from three months to two years. In this case, Atty.
Agleron was suspended from the practice of law three month.

A.C. No. 10185

March 12, 2014

LICERIO DIZON, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.
FACTS:
A petition for disbarment was filed against Atty. Cabucana, Jr. for falsification of public document.
Complainant alleged that he was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the heirs of the
late Florentino Callangan, namely, Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed Callangan who were parties in Civil
Case No. 1-689 filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Santiago City (MTCC); that on
November 6, 2003, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in the said case and notarized
before Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on
December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the
signatories therein testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that because of the irregularity in the due execution of the
Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which
caused damage and injury to complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law in notarizing the
document in the absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be sanctioned in accordance
with Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats against him on July 20, 2004 after the hearing of the said
case in MTCC.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated the Notarial Law Sec. 2 (b)
HELD:
YES, The requirement of personal appearance of the affiant is required under the Notarial Law and Section 2
(b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. The Supreme Court held that as a notary public, Atty.
Cabucana, Jr. should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person executing it
and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys
free and voluntary act and deed. Thus, Atty. Cabucana, Jr. was found violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and suspended from the practice of law for three months. His notarial
commission was revoked and he was prohibited from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.