A. C. No.

7504 November 23, 2007

VIRGINIA VILLAFLORES, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, respondent.

Before Us is a Complaint1 for Disbarment filed by complainant Virginia Villaflores against

respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos, charging the latter with Gross Negligence and Dereliction of
Duty.

Facts:
On 1 September 2004, complainant received a copy of a Notice2 from the Court of Appeals
requiring her to file her appellants brief within 45 days from receipt thereof.
Immediately thereafter, complainant approached respondent, who had previously handled
her sons case, to file on her behalf the required appellants brief. Since respondent agreed
to handle the appeal, complainant handed to respondent on 8 September 2004 the amount
of P10,000.00 as partial payment of the latters acceptance fee of P20,000.00, together with
the entire records of the case. The following day, on 9 September 2004, complainant paid
the balance of respondents acceptance fee in the amount of P10,000.00. These payments
were duly receipted and acknowledged3 by the respondent.
an Employment Contract4 was executed between complainant and respondent whereby the
former formally engaged the latters professional services.
On 14 January 2005, complainant received a copy of a Resolution6 dated 6 January 2005
issued by the Court of Appeals dismissing her appeal for failure to file her appellants brief
within the reglementary period. Thus, on 17 January 2005, complainant went to
respondents office but failed to see respondent.
A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he
should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally would
expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he
represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill
having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients
interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor, and his client may reasonably
expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
Respondent has obviously failed to measure up to the foregoing standards.

Issue:
whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case as
would warrant disciplinary action.

Ruling:
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but
once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Among the fundamental rules
of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.
Respondents conduct in failing to file the appellants brief for complainant before the Court
of Appeals falls below the standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to
their clients cause.
The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. To establish
the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are
sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession
A lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner; and he
should provide a quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally would
expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation. By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he
represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill
having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients
interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor, and his client may reasonably
expect him to discharge his obligations diligently.
Respondent has obviously failed to measure up to the foregoing standards.

HILADO V DAVID
TUASON;1949

NATURE
Original action. Certiorari

FACTS
- Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an action Against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the sale of
several houses and lot executed by her now deceased husband during the Japanese
occupation.
- In the course of the case, Hilado consulted respondent Vicente J. Francisco with regard the
case filed against Assad despite the fact that she had previously retained a different set of
lawyers to act on her behalf. Francisco claims that at the time, he already advised her that
her case cannot prosper on the basis of what was told him by her.
- In any case, Hilado brought to his office documents related to the case. Francisco claims
that these documents were received by his assistant. Atty Agrava. When advised of the
same, he instructed Atty. Agrava to return the documents as the firm will not handle her
case against Assad.
- Atty Agrava thought that in returning the documents a proper explanation be made as to
why the firm is not taking her case. Atty. Francisco signed the letter to Hilado without
reading the same.
- On January 28, 1946, Atty Francisco entered his appearance as attorney of record for Assad
in the case instituted by Hilado.
- On May 29, 1946, the lawyers of Hilado wrote Francisco urging him to discontinue
representing Assad on the grounds that he was consulted by Hilado with regard to her case.
and that during the consultation, certain documents were turned over to him.
- When Francisco did not reply, Hilados lawyers, on her behalf, filed this original action.

ISSUE
WON Francisco should be disqualified from representing his clients against Hilado

HELD
Ratio
- Yes. Based on the facts, a relationship of attorney and client between Francisco and Hilado
ensued when he issued the written opinion to Hilado. The letter binds and estops him in
acting for others against Hilado.
Reasoning
- The SC noted that it is in the interest in the administration of justice that lawyers are
viewed without reproach in their actuations. Hence, even if it were true that what was given
to Francisco were facts that were already public knowledge, there is no way of knowing if
this was in fact the case.
- In citing jurisprudence on the matter, the court held that a lawyer is engaged
professionally when he is just in fact listening to a clients preliminary statement of his case
or when he is giving advice thereon. That formality is not the essence of employment.
- The fact that the action against Francisco was brought four months after he filed in
appearing in the case does not operate as a waiver of Hilados right to ask for his
disqualification. The confidence once reposed cannot be divested by expiration of
professional employment. The Court also stated that in matters of the practice of law the
jurisdiction of the court is pervasive. This flows from the fact that lawyers are officers of the
court where they practice, forming a part of the machinery of the law for the administration
of justice and as such are subject to the disciplinary authority of the court.
- The Court then expounded on the nature of the retaining fee as a means of
compensating the lawyer who was asked to give professional advise to the detriment of the
lawyer not being able to act as counsel for the other side, even if he has declined to perform
the services required by the original client. The fee is separate from the fee that a client is
obligated to pay the lawyer for the services which he was retained to perform. //jsq

GEORGE SOLATAN V OSCAR INOCENTES; August 9, 2005 A.C. No. 6504

FACTS Atty Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates
Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were
placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the
Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.

Complainants sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. It appears that she left for the States and her apartment
was used by members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for nonpayment of rentals was filed against her and a
decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises.

Complainant was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his
desire to PROFESSION arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee
of the apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against
tenants of the Genito Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which
complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorneys fees and costs of suit.
Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the attorneys fees.

Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the writ of
execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano
agreed to release the levied properties and allow complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camanos
advice, complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas
stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where
he was temporarily staying. - complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano
and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1
year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.

ISSUES 1. WON Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2. WON Atty. Inocentes violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility .

HELD 1. YES Ratio An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being
retained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Reasoning Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients.
Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be
held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the
rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It
should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the
properties. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his
ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal. 2. YES Ratio His
failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy
shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make
reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Reasoning Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latters dealings with
complainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.
Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in
apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are exercising
supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by persons under their charge. Disposition Petition granted. Sanction on Atty. Camano is affirmed.
Atty. Inocentes is admonished with the warning that repetition of the same or similar omission will be dealt with
more severely. //silvosa

[A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012]

JOSEFINA M. ANION, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., RESPONDENT.

We resolve this disbarment complaint against Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of: (1) violating the
lawyers duty to preserve confidential information received from his client; and (2) violating the prohibition on
representing conflicting interests.

Facts

In her complaint, Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late
common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently
filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of
Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from
her in filing the civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale.
However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present
disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who
lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had instigated the complaint for this reason.

Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty. Sabitsana administratively liable for representing conflicting
interests. The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year. The IBP Board of Governors agreed with the IBP Commissioners recommended penalty.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

Ruling

After a careful study of the records, we agree with the findings and recommendations of the IBP
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.

The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them. Needless to
state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of
utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyers duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting
interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted below:

Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts.
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time,
to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same
lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would
be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in the same action; he
also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property
in which his legal services had been previously retained.

We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsanas due process rights. Although there was indeed a specific charge in the
complaint, we are not unmindful that the complaint itself contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a
violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.

[A.C.No. 9154 (Formerly CBD No. 07-1965), March 19, 2012]

AURORA D. CERDAN, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. CARLO GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

Before the Court is the undated Resolution[1] of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) finding Atty. Carlo Gomez (Atty. Gomez) liable for violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Facts
The complainant sought the legal advice of Atty. Gomez as to what to do with the properties left by Rufino; and that
she paid Atty. Gomez attorney's fees in the amount of P152,000.00 but only the amount of P100,000.00 was
reflected in the receipt.

Complainant claimed that she authorized Atty. Gomez, thru a special power of attorney (SPA), to settle Rufino's
savings account in FCB-Quezon branch; that the original agreement of a 50-50 sharing between complainant and the
children of Rufino, as proposed by the FCB counsel, was replaced by the Compromise Agreement entered into by
Atty. Gomez, wherein the heirs of Rufino got 60% of the share while she only received 40%; that Atty. Gomez
included in the Compromise Agreement the savings account in FCB-Narra Branch when the scope of the SPA was
only the account in FCB-Quezon branch; that Atty. Gomez took her bank book for the FCB account in Narra Branch
containing deposits in the amount of more or less P165,000.00 and never returned it to her; and that Atty. Gomez
withdrew from her FCB accounts and thereafter gave the amount of P290,000.00 and uttered, "ITO NA LAHATANG
PERA MO ATANG SA AKIN NAKUHA KO NA."

Issue

Whether Atty. Gomez exceeded his authority in the lawyer-client relationship.

Ruling

A lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature and it requires a high standard of conduct and demands
utmost fidelity, candor, fairness, and good faith. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, he is required by the Canons
of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.
In the case at bench, Atty. Gomez failed to observe the utmost good faith, loyalty, candor, and fidelity required of an
attorney in his dealings with complainant. Atty. Gomez exceeded his authority when he entered into a compromise
agreement with regard to the FCB account in Quezon Branch, where he agreed that complainant shall receive 40
percent of the proceeds while the heirs of Rufino shall get the 60 percent, which was contrary to the original
agreement of 50-50 sharing. Atty. Gomez likewise acted beyond the scope of the SPA when he included in the
compromise agreement the FCB account in Narra branch when it was issued only with respect to the FCB account,
Quezon branch. Moreover, Atty. Gomez entered into a compromise agreement with respect to the other properties of
Rufino without authority from complainant.

The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Section 16, provides:

CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for or from the client. He is obliged to render a prompt accounting of all the
property and money he has collected for his client.//cajeta

SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITA B. RAFOLS vs. ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR
[A.C. No. 4973. March 15, 2010.]

FACTS:
The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General Santos City,
wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge Dizon, Jr. The complainants
were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as acceptance fee.

On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence and informed complainant
Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel thus went to the East
Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. The respondent introduced Manuel to the
judge, who informed Manuel that their case was pending in his sala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve
the case in their favor, assuring their success up to the Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct

HELD: YES
Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant) but imposed
the supreme penalty of disbarment.

Respondent's act of introducing the complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent was aware of the
illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the court unqualifiedly accepted
the aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report and Recommendation, viz.:
. . . Being the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court is something beyond
the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overt act in arranging the meeting
between Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of the East Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that
he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge Dizon's desire to ask money from the complainants-litigants
for a favorable decision of their case which was pending before the sala of Judge Dizon.

The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of our legal system,
and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidence in the legal system are ensured. Any
violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition on the attorney of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
Specifically, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
//donn.tantuan

HECTOR TREAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. 195002. January 25, 2012.]

FACTS:
Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja wanted to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo CitY. It was then
mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended Atty. Hector Treas to Elizabeth, who
was an employee and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title in the latter's name. Hector
informed Elizabeth that for the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita, expenses would be incurred.

Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt but the latter misappropriated
and converted it to his own personal use.

RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: jurisdiction of RTC.

RULING:
There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over
the case.

Court sees it fit to note that the Code of Professional Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioner's
conduct in handling the funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides such.

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the
client how the money was spent. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money constitutes a
blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His
failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his
own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.

The case is thus referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against petitioner.
//donn.tantuan

Junio v Grupo

Facts:
Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in Bohol. For
no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio
wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that he use the money to help defray
his childrens educational expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the
family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junios sisters served as Grupos household helpers for many
years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or an act of a friend for
a friend with consideration involved. He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between
them.
The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal
Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship.

Held:
Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity and the
attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established.
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took advantage of
his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard conduct of an
attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer
whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with interest at
the legal rate.
* Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.

People of the Philippines vs Atty. Raul Sesbreno

Facts:

Atty. Sesbreno and Atty. Ramon Ceniza are opposing counsels in a civil case. At one point in said civil case, Atty.
Ceniza asked for a transfer of hearing. It was granted but Sesbreno and his client still appeared on the supposed trial
date because they denied that they ever received notice of the postponement. Sesbreno then filed a motion to have
Ceniza reimburse them the expenses they made that day. Ceniza opposed said motion and he showed evidence that
Sebreno in fact received the notice of the postponement of the hearing. The trial court then directed Sesbreno to
show cause why he should not be subject to contempt. In the subsequent pleadings, Ceniza accused Sesbreno of
misrepresentation prevarication, and telling a barefaced and documented lie. Sesbreno then filed a Reply where he
accused Ceniza of being an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and irresponsible childish
prankster. Ceniza then filed a libel case against Sesbreno.

ISSUE: Whether or not the libel case should prosper.

HELD: No. Pleadings filed in court are covered by privileged communication. They are privileged insofar as they
are relevant to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. HOWEVER, both lawyers are advised by the Supreme Court
to refrain from using language unbecoming of a member of the Bar and to extend courtesy and respect to their
brothers in the profession. They were warned that a repetition of same infraction will be dealt with severely. In
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language should be dignified. Choice of language is a
very important requirement in the preparation of pleadings. Appropriately, in the assertion of their clients rights,
lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Greater care and
circumspection must be exercised in the preparation of their pleadings and to refrain from using abrasive and
offensive language.