CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES

ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the
following case:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of
conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative
of these canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall,
subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with
his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all
information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
Cases:
1. Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management
Committee (Comm) v. JANCOM
JANCOM had existing contract for waste management in Metro
Rizal and Carmona, but was yet to be ratified by the president.
Ramos term ended and endorsed it to Estrada. Later, Estrada
ordered the closing of the landfill in San Mateo, Rizal due to the
peoples clamor. Therefore, led the Comm to terminate its contrac
with JANCOM. Here JANCOM appointed Atty. Molina as their
representative and determine and file such legal action as
deemed necessary before the Philippine courts in any manner
deemed appropriate against he Comm.
JANCOM and MMDA later went into re-negotiations for contract.
While on the other hand, atty. Molina filed omnibus motion for a
writ of execution.
Approved by RTC affirmed by CA.
Assailed by Comm and MMDA
JANCOM said Molina had no authority to act upon their case for
they have terminated his services. Further, it was assailed by

Comm and MMDA that there can be no valid writ of exec, because
contract never ratified by president.
JANCOM never expressed termination of Atty. Molinas
services.
There is valid contract! Just lacked ratification, but valid.
Doctine on termination:
Representation continues until the court dispenses with the
services of counsel: Representation continues until the court
dispenses with the services of counsel in accordance with Section
26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. No substitution of counsel of
record is allowed unless the following essential requisites concur:
(1) there must be a written request for substitution; (2) it must be
filed with the written consent of the client; (3) it must be with the
written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and (4) in case
the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained,
there must be at least a proof of notice that the motion for
substitution was served on him in the manner prescribed by the
Rules of Court.
2. Humberto Lim v. Nicanor Villarosa
Jalandoni is the president of Penta Resort Corp (PRC). He engaged
in atty. Villarosas services to represent him in a civil case. Later,
Villarosa without due notice, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
1 day prior to hearing.
Villarosa stated, he had conflict of interest, because he was
RETAINER counsel for Jalbuena who the latter is being charged
by PRC for numerous estafa cases.
Villarosa was found to be guilty for violating Canons 15 and 22 for
leaving client in the air and got SUSPENDED for 1 year.
Doctrine:
The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
other than for sufficient cause is considerably restrictedan
attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of
his client or by permission of the court after due notice and
hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name
of the new lawyer is recorded in the case.
3. Hilado v. Hon. David (1949
Hilado brought actions against Assad for annulment of sale of
houses. Later during pendency of case, Hilados counsels, Delgado

firm, adviced Assads counsel atty. Francisco, to desist from

representing Assad for conflict of interest, because, it was found
that Hilado previously approached atty. Francisco for legal opinion
regarding the same case. Francisco never desisted.
This prompted Hilado to file DQ in court, which was denied by
Hon. David.
SC held that indeed there exist a attorney-client relation between
Hilado and Francisco, and Francisco should be DQd.
Special notes:
It doesnt matter if there was no confidential information that
was relayed, the fact that Francisco provided a legal opinion for
Hilado creates a A/C relationship even with Franciscos alibi that
it was only associates work and he merely signed. He is binded
when he signed (TANGA).
Does not make it moot or show waiver, even if DQ case was filed
four months into case.

honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to

society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a
member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act
which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed
by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
profession. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it
engages public interest in a substantial degree and protection of
the interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or
authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public
and the courts and the administrative offices generally.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a
public one making it admissible in court without further proof of
its authenticity.
ON DISBARMENT
5. Ronquillo c. Cezar

ON TERMINATION OF LAWYER-CLIENT RELATION

4. Maligasa v. Cabanting
Atty. Cabanting allegedly notarized a Quitclaim executed by Irene
Maligasa in favor of Juanito Abaog over a parcel of land in
Pangasinan. Such document was used as evidence against
complainant, Romana Maligasa, for annulment of sale if said land.
It was found that, it was impossible for Irene Maligasa to appear
and have quitclaim notarized for she was already 16 days daead on
the day of the notarization.
SC held that Atty. Cabanting should be disbarred for unbecoming
of an attorney.
Notes:
Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in
light of his prior misconduct hereinbefore mentioned for
which he was penalized with a six (6) month suspension from the
practice of law, with a warning that repetition of the same or
similar act would be dealt with more severely, the contumacious
behavior of respondent in the instant case which grossly degrades
the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much
graver penalty.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings

Ronquillo was an OFW, who with atty. Cezar entered a deed of

assignment, Fir orice if 1.5M, Cezar shall transfer rights of house
and lot to Ronquillo. Ronquillo gave 50%DP, and issued 4 postdated checks for the remainder.
Later, Ronquillo found out that Cezar never acted on contract, and
never created the deed of sale. Ronquillo said that they were still
willing to pay, but if Cezar dont act agad, they want their money
back with interest. Cezar asked for 20 more days but failed to
deliver. Ronquillo sent demand letters, but to no avail.
IBP 3 year suspension.
SC affirmed.
Notes:
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private
capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant Marili
representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse
unit and lot in question. When he failed in his undertaking,
respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it
was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one
has no legal right of ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of
dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of
right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that
he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit
and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign
said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of
Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price

amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred

Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it,
made matters worse for him.

confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross
violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such
infraction may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

6. Lingan v. Attys Calubaquib and Baliga

Lingan charged both attys Calubaquib and Baligos for falsification
of public documents. This rooted from a certain Isaac Villegas who
filed civil case against Lingan. It was alleged by Lingan that
Calubaquib when it notarized cert. for non-forum shopping,
recorded it as a certain affidavit for Malayao.
Here trial court rendered decision in favor of Lingan.
Further, Villegas upon assigning SPA to Calubaquib as his
attorney-in-fact when notarized by Baliga showed that it was
recorded as an affidavit of loss for a ccertain Telan.
Both attys admitted incorrectness and attributed mistake to the
incompetence of their legal secretaries.
SC held that they be suspended for 1 year, and DQ as Notary
Publics for 2 years.
*Same doctrine regarding notary public with Ronquillo v. Cezar
7. Adrimisin v. Jaiver
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession. Consequently, a lawyer should
account for the money received from a client. The Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 of the Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
By his receipt of the amount, respondent agreed to take up
complainants cause and owed fidelity to complainant and her
cause, even if complainant never paid any fee. Lawyering is not a
business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration.
In failing to immediately secure the bail bond it took 8 days
before the bail bond was prepared respondent clearly neglected
to exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care
and skill required by the circumstances.
A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on
behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of
general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public

8. People v. Santocildes
Sasantocildes pleaded not guilty for a charge saying that he raped
a 9 yr-old girl. He was found guilty by RTC. In his appeal, he said
he was deprived of his right to due process for being represented
by a person who was not a lawyer Gualberto Ompong.
OSG recommended that his appeal be dismissed for he was well
represented and, though not a lawyer, handled case like a
seasoned and skillful lawyer.
SC held granting the petition and REMANDED case to RTC.
Notes:
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but
is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons
of good moral character with special qualifications duly
ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose
in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but
also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and
partaking of the nature of a public trust. Under Section 3 (e)
of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who undertakes
the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect
VARIOUS CASES
9. In Re: Guzman
Atty. Danilo de Guzman was previously disbarred for leaking Bar
Exam regarding the Mercantile law to his BRODS. (nako, frat
pare) 5 years later, he filed petition for Judicial Clemency and
Compassion praying to be reinstated to be an attorney again (balik
niyo ako pls).
He narrated that he dedicated his life to public service and
became very religious. He cited that he was a good man, for ever
since he was young he alreay served in SK and at later he was
appointed by city government of Taguig as a Legal Officer, helping
the less fortunate, prior to his disbarment.
At current, he was appointed as Taguigs secretariat of the
Peoples Law Enforcement. He stated that he be reinstated for he

has acknowledged his wrong and has repented and since then he
has learned from his mistakes and has taken the said humbling
experience to make him a better person.
SC ruled that his Disbarment be modified to a 7 year
suspension and re-apply for lift of suspension after 2 years.
Notes:
In cases where the Supreme Court is to reverse the penalty of
disbarment upon a lawyer, it has to consider the remorse of the
disbarred lawyer and the conduct of his public life during his years
outside of the bar.
10. Joselano Guevarra v. Atty. Noli Eala
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides the
grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the phrase grossly
immoral conduct, not under scandalous circumstances.
In a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman
who is not his wife, it is immaterial whether the affair was carried
out discreetly. A lawyer, in carrying on an extra-marital affair with
a married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her
marriage was null and void, and despite such lawyer himself being
married, showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the
law he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
Atty Eala, disbarred.
11. Angeles v. Ibanez
Angeles et al. filed disbarment case against atty Ibanez for
allegedly falsely notarizing a document purporting a sale of land to
Puerto Azul by and from the complainants. It was alleged that
Ibanez notarized the documents without them being present and
having no authority to notarize in Cavite, the land being at Cavite,
as the notarial records indicate Manila. Ibanez, used as defense
denying such allegations and saying that he is a notary public for
Cavite and the notary-in-fact for Puerto Azul and that it was
because of a fault by his legal assistant that the mistake was done.
IBP suspended him for 1 year plus revoked Notary public for 2
years.
SC held suspended for 1 year and 1 year revocation of Notary.
Doctrine:
The physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to

verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging

parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act
and deed
12. Sps. Virgilio and Angelina Aranda vs. Elayda
Sps Aranda engaged in services of Elayda. When decision was
about to said, Elayda did not attend and it was alleged that such
notice was only sent to him and he never even took the effort to
inform sps. Aranda. Decision was adverse to sps, and Elayda never
filed notice to appeal. Sps were aggrieved upon knowing about
this and thus filed this suit. Elayde in defense, said he was not able
to file anything due to disinterest of couple and their unwillingness
to participate. IBP suspended 6 months. SC affirmed.
A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only
protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of
the community to the legal profession.
13. Olazo v. Tinga
Government lawyers; prohibition against private practice. As a
rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private
practice of their profession during their incumbency. By way of
exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his
or her profession under the following conditions: first, the private
practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and
second, the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or
her official functions. The last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 6713
provides an exception to the exception. In case of lawyers
separated from the government service who are covered under
subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year
prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any
matter before the office he used to be with.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility echoes this
restriction and prohibits lawyers, after leaving the government
service, to accept engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.
The keyword in Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility is the term intervene which we previously
interpreted to include an act of a person who has the power to
influence the proceedings. Otherwise stated, to fall within the

ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the

respondent must have accepted engagement or employment in a
matter which, by virtue of his public office, he had previously
exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the
respondent previously interfered with the sales application
covering Manuels land when the former was still a member of the
Committee on Awards. The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently
establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law.
At face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was
limited only in the preparation of a single document and private
practice of law contemplates a succession of acts of the same
nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as
a lawyer.
14. Arellano v. Mijares
Arellano engaged in Mijares services to secure title to Estero de
san Miguel. Arello provided him P500k as bribe money to be given
to officials for such plus attorneys fees. Mijares failed to secure
permits, therefore Arellano terminated his services and demanded
money back. Mijares failed to return money and in defense said
that he failed to comply due to it was not made know to him that
Arellano already previously made negotiations with city gov of
Manila for the same purpose. He was found guilty and DISBARED
by SC for misappropriating the P500k.
Notes:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the
disbarment or suspension of a lawyer for the following:
(1) deceit;
(2) malpractice;
(3) gross misconduct in office;
(4) grossly immoral conduct;
(5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) violation of the lawyers oath;
(7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and
(8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority
to do so.
15. Maniago v. de Dios

Maniago sought for the disbarment of Atty. de Dios for allegedly

practicing while still being suspended. De Dios countered saying
that her suspension has already been lifted, having already served
the 6 months. She obtained a resolution from SC that shes already
permitted to practice. Irregardless of such, the judge of the Trial
Court still denied and found de Dios ineligible to practice and
represent Miyata in the case where it invoves Maniago. SC refered
case to OBC for investigation, it was found that de Dios just went
straight back to practice after 6 months of not practicing without
first seeking any clearance from SC. OBC therefor sought from the
SC guidelines for seeking reinstatement after being suspended to
clarify the situation.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED that
the following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of
an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from
the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the
penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is
immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15
days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The
denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent
shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of
the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the
period of his or her suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local
Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where
respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where
he or she has appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of
respondents compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more
severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

16. Carlos Reyes v. Atty. Vitan

Reyes sought Vitans services to file appropriate complaints
against Estelita Reyes and Julieta Alegonza. Desite being paid
attys fees of 17,000, Vitan never acted upon it. IBP recommended

2 year suspension plus reimbursement of 17,000.

SC held that Vitan be suspended for 6 months and return 17,000
plus legal interest.
Doctrine/s: A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence and never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Indeed, it is his sworn duty not to delay no man for money or
malice; and to conduct himself in a proper manner not only to his
client, but also to the court, the legal profession and society at
large.
17. Que v. Revilla
Revilla was previously disbarred and now seeks to be reinstated to
be a lawyer again. Revilla filed 7 petitions in total and the first
being less than a year after being disbarred. He sought for the
compassion of the court, citing that he had already changed his
ways, he shall practice for the good, he has became a lay minister
of their church, he taught catechism classes, and even obtained an

endorsement from their bishop and even at his last petition, he

made maka-awa to the court saying that he was already
terminally ill and sought for reinstatement, not to practice, but to
feel whole again nalang. Regardless of such, SC dismissed his
petitions for lack of sincerity and given the number and short time
difference of the petitions.
Doctrine:
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It
is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to
everyone who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted
and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness
inintellectual attainment and in moral character. The same
reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When
exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court
should see to it that only those who establish their present moral
fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.
Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never
permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a duty
to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure
that if the doors are opened,it is done so only as a matter of
justice.