Qualifications of a Lawyer: Cojuangco jr vs Palma
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Palma In 2003, Investigating Commissioner San Juan recommended that Palma
Supreme Court |A.C. No. 2474|Sept. 15, 2004|Per curiam
Nature of Case: Admin Case
SUMMARY: Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer
and grossly immoral conduct. The Court found that there were grounds for
disbarment of Palma, based on the facts and IBP’s investigation.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES:
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:
x xxx
CANON 1 –A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
FACTS:
In the late 1970’s, complainant Cojuangco, Jr. hired respondent Atty.
Palma as his personal counsel. Palma became tutor to Cojuangco, Jr.’s 22-year-old
daughter, Lisa.
In 1982, without Cojuangco, Jr.’s knowledge, Palma married Lisa in
Hong Kong. Cojuangco, Jr. was shocked, knowing that Palma was married with
three children. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
between Palma and Lisa to CFI. CFI declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
Cojuangco, Jr. also filed for Palma’s disbarment with the SC. Palma
moved to dismiss the petition. In 1983, the OSG investigated the case. The SC
First Division then resolved to set aside the CFI decision and remanded the
disbarment case to CFI.
In 1984, Palma moved to suspend proceedings to the OSG. The motion
was denied. Palam then moved for issuance of a restraining order to the SC. SC
then enjoined the OSG from investigation.
The case was then referred to the IBP. In 1998, both parties were asked if
they are still interested in prosecuting the case. Cojuangco, Jr. affirmed his interest
but Palma repeatedly postponed the hearings.
be suspended from law practice for 3 years. IBP reduced the penalty to 1 year.
ISSUE/S:
1) W/N Palma should be disbarred
HELD/RULE/RATIO:
1) YES. For a lawyer, there is no difference whether his transgression is
professional or private. Thus, his private life may be subject to inquiry by
the proper authorities.
Although Cojuangco, Jr. deemed Palma as a good lawyer, Palma
lacked good moral character. Palma is guilty of grossly immoral conduct,
which is ground for disbarment. First, Palma abandoned Elizabeth, his
lawful wife, and three children. Second, he lured Lisa, an innocent young
woman, into marriage. Third, he claimed to be a “bachelor” in a foreign
land.
Palma also used his closeness with Cojuangco, Jr. to court Lisa. He
used Cojuangco, Jr.’s resources to fly to Hong Kong to marry Lisa. He
even claimed to Cojuangco, Jr. that “everything was legal”. Aggravating
Palma’s culpability is Lisa’s young age and psychological treatment for
emotional immaturity at the time of marriage.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION: Palma GUILTY of grossly immoral
conduct and violation of oath as lawyer, and is DISBARRED. His name is
stricken from Roll of Attorneys.
Cojuangco Jr. vs. Palma
Nature of Case: Appeal/etc.
SUMMARY: Cojuangco filed a disbarment case against Palma for immoral
misconduct as a lawyer.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES: Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
Qualifications of a Lawyer: Cojuangco jr vs Palma

In the 1970’s, complainant Cojuangco was a client of Angara
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. The attorney assigned to Cojuangco’s
case is respondent Palma.
Cojuangco and Palma’s families got close with each other. They travel
abroad and Palma even tutored Cojuangco’s daughter, Lisa.
On June 22, 1982, Palma secretly married Lisa in Hong Kong. Palma
notified the Cojuangco’s the day after wherein the family got shocked and
immediately sent Lisa’s 2 brothers to Hong Kong to persuade her to go back to
Manila.
a) He abandoned his wife and 3 kids
b) He lured a young emotionally-unstable woman in marrying him
c) He misrepresented himself as a bachelor
Lawyers should always act responsibly whether in their professional or their
private lives.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION:
Palma was GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and has violated his oath as a
lawyer. His name was also stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Cojuangco came to know that a) Palma requested from Cojuangco’s

office a plane ticket to Australia with a stop over in Hong Kong on the day of the
marriage; b) Palma misrepresented himself as a bachelor; and c) Palma has a wife
and 3 kids.

Cojuangco filed with the Court of First Instance a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage. CFI declared that the marriage is null and void ab initio.

Cojuangco also filed a disbarment case with the First Division of the
Court on the ground of grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence.
Palma filed a motion to dismiss. CFI’s decision was set aside.

The case was referred to the IBP. Cojuangco confirmed his interest in
continuing the case but Palma kept on postponing the hearings.

In 2003, Investigating Commissioner San Juan found Palma guilty of

grossly immoral conduct and violation of lawyer’s oath and suspended Palma for
3 years. IBP reduced it to 1 year.
ISSUE/S:
w/n Palma should be disbarred.
HELD/RULE/RATIO:
YES. Rule 1.01 of the CPR says that lawyers should not engage in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Palma constituted immoral misconduct
through the ff:
The Lawyer and Society: Castaneda vs Ago
CASTAÑEDA v AGO
G.R. No. L-28546; June 30, 1975
PONENTE: CASTRO, J.
SUMMARY:
In 1955, petitioners Castañeda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor Ago
to recover some machineries. Ago was ordered by the Court of First Instance of
Manila to return the machineries or pay definite sums of money. This judgment
was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Ago attempted thrice to obtain a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from enforcing the writ of executions,
but all motions were denied. While the battle on the matter of lifting and restoring
the restraining order was being fought, the Agos filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, which the Supreme Court dismissed. And again, the Agos filed a
similar petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which
was finally granted.
The Supreme Court found that the Agos, abetted by their lawyer Jose M. Luison,
to have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process. For 14 years,
the Agos were able to resist execution of the judgment from one court to another.
This case highlights the failure of Atty. Luison to fulfil his sacred mission as a
sworn public servant and officer of the court. He became an instigator of
controversy and predator of conflict of litigation instead of a mediator and true
exponent of the primacy of truth and moral justice. It was supposed to be his
bounden duty to advice his client on the merit and lack of merit of his case. A
lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its
primacy is indisputable.
FACTS:
 In 1955, Castañeda and Henson filed a replevin case (legal remedy that
enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or
unlawfully) against Pastor Ago in the Court of First Instance in Manila.
 The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Castañeda and Henson.
 In 1961, the SC affirmed the decision of the trial court, which issued a
writ of execution for Php 172 923. 87 and levy was made on Ago’s house
and lots in QC.
 When the sheriff advertised for the sale of the houses, Ago moved to stop
the auction. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition and was
affirmed by the SC.
 Ago attempted thrice to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution but were all denied.
 In 1964, the Sheriff executed the final deed of sale. Ago, now joined by
his wife, filed a complaint in the CFI in Quezon City to annul the sale on
the ground that the obligation rendered again him in the suit was his
personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in their conjugal residential
house and lots could not be legally reached for the satisfaction of the
judgment.
 In 1966, Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying for a
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the sheriff from enforcing the
writ of possession, which the Supreme Court dismissed.
 In 1967, the Agos filed a similar petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the Court of Appeals, which was finally granted.
ISSUE/S: Whether or the Agos, abetted by Atty. Luison, misused legal remedies
in this case? – YES
HELD/RATIO:
 The Court condemns the practice of manifold tactics of going from one
court to another just to resist execution of judgment.
 “It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the
intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his
case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than
traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and
caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate.”
RULING: The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside. Civil case Q-7986 of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the
re-filing of the petitioners' counterclaim in a new and independent action.
NOTES:
 Laches – failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
 Various branches of a CFI of a province or city, having as they have the
The Lawyer and Society: Castaneda vs Ago
same or equal authority an exercising as they do concurrent an coordinate
jurisdiction, should, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their
respective cases, orders and judgment to avoid confusion and
administration of justice.
 The doctrine that a court may not interfere with the orders of a co-equal
court does not apply in the case at bar. The Court of First Instance of
Manila, which issued the writ of possession, ultimately was not interfered
with by its co-equal court, the Court of First Instance of Quezon City as
the latter lifted the restraining order it had previously issued against the
enforcement of the Manila court’s writ of possession; it is the Court of
Appeals that enjoined, in part, the enforcement of the writ.
Castañeda v. Ago
Ponente: Justice Castro
Doctrine/Definitions:
• The doctrine that a court may not interfere with the orders of a co-equal court
does not apply in the case at bar. The Court of First Instance Manila did not
interfere with the Court of First Instance of QC.
• Injunction - issued to protect present right
• Laches- failure to neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of tme,
could or should have been done earlier. Presumption: the party has abandoned or
declined to assert it
FACTS:
• In 1955, Petitioners Castañeda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Pastor
Ago in the court of First Instance to recover certain machineries.
• Judgment was in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Ago to return the said
machineries or pay
• Ago appealed and SC affirmed the decision of the trial court. The trial court
issued a writ of execution for a sum. Ago’s motion for a stay was denied and levy
was made on Ago’s house in QC. Sheriff advertised for auction sale and Ago
moved to stop the auction but was denied.
• Ago filed a petition of certiorari with the CA and was dismissed. He thrice
attempted to obtain a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the sheriff from
enforcing the writ of execution and sheriff sold the house and lots to the highest
bidder, the petitioners Castañeda and Henson.
• Ago failed to redeem and the sheriff issued a final deed of sale to the petitioners.
• Ago now with his wife, Lourdes Yu Ago as co-plaintiff, filed a complaint in the
CFI of QC to annul the sheriff’s sale on the ground that Lourdes own the one-half
share in their conjugal residential house. The replevin suit was his personal
obligation and the properties levied and sold could not be legally reached for the
satisfaction of the judgment
• Ago also filed for a petition of certiorari and prohibition for a writ of preliminary
injunction to stop the sheriff from enforcing the writ of possession. SC dismissed
the petition
• Ago filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which was
granted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Agos assisted by their lawyer, Jose M. Luison
misused legal remedies in this case?
HELD: YES.
• The respondents’ lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and
prostituted the legal process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the
extended prejudice of the petitioners who were long denied in their victory in the
replevin suit.
• The respondents with the assistance of counsel resist execution for 14 years in
and from one court to another (5 times in the SC).
• SC condemns the attitude of the respondents and their counsel who, far from
viewing the courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use
them to subvert the very ends of justice.
• Luison’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position is not
becoming of a lawyer who had sworn an oath as a public servant. A lawyer’s oath
to uphold justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
Decision: Treble costs are assessed against the Agos which shall be paid by their
lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Luison
The Lawyer and Client: Relationship – Burbe vs Magulta
Burbe. Vs. Magulta
Supreme Court (A.C no. 5713) J. Panganiban
Nature of Case: Administrative Case
SUMMARY: Alberto Magulta faced a complaint to the IBP and SC on the
grounds that he was not able to deliver his end as obliged within an attorney-
client relationship.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES: Attorney-Client Relationship, Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
Atty. Alberto Magulta has allegedly violated Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Magulta agreed to legally represent Dominador Burbe in a possible civil
case. The latter paid the necessary fees that Magulta needed to prepare the legal
papers.
As time passed, Burbe would continuously ask Magulta for an update
regarding the case, but he makes up excuses in order to avoid the questions.
Burbe only uncovered the truth when he asked the court personnel, and the
latter responding that no case has been filed. Magulta kept on denying his fault, and
he only admitted it when a certification that he has not filed a case was presented.
Burbe complained Magulta to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on
the grounds of misrepresentation, dishonesty, and oppressive conduct. Magulta
denied the allegations, he claimed that Burbe never paid him even though he kept
reminding the latter to pay. And, that no attorney-client relationship was established
between them.
The IBP’s recommendation stated that an obligation was created to Burbe
and Magulta failed to deliver his end. Maguilta’s actions constitutes highly
dishonest conduct and that he misappropriated the funds.
Main Issue: Whether ot not an attorney-client relationship existed between
the parties.
Subordinate issue: Whether or not Magulta misappropriated the funds.
HELD/RULE/RATIO:
Yes, an attorney-client relationship existed between the parties
because it is established from the first moment Burbe asked Magulta for legal
advice.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them.
It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged, an
attorney must handle the case for the service that had been sought. As long as
the attorney voluntarily permits with the consultation, the relationship is
established.
The lawyer is duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to
prepare, at the soonest possible time in order to protect client’s interest.
Magulta misappropriated his client’s funds as per Rule 16.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, lawyers shall hold in trust all money of their clients
and properties that may come into their possession.
Magulta claimed that there was a mistake upon issuance of the receipt of
payment to Burbe, and the former should have immediately taken steps to correct
the error. Magulta should have been scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted to them. The failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION:
The Supreme Court convicted Magulta of violating rules 16.01 and 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he was suspended from practising
law for 1 year.
BURBE v MAGULTA
A.C. No. 99-634; June 10, 2002
PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.
SUMMARY:
Atty. Alberto Magulta agreed to legally represent Dominador Burbe for his money
claim and possible civil case against another party. Magulta prepared the Demand
letter and required a Php 25 000 filing fee. In the months that follow, no progress
was made with regards Burbe’s case. After verifying that no case was ever filed
and recorded, Burbe filed a Complaint against Magulta for his misrepresentation,
dishonesty, and misappropriation of his funds.
The Lawyer and Client: Relationship – Burbe vs Magulta
Magulta argues that the amount paid for by Burbe was just the attorney’s fee and
not the filing fee, so Burbe’s claim for misappropriation of funds lacks merit. He
contends that no lawyer-client relationship existed between them because he only
drafted the documents as a favor for a kumpadre of one of his partners, and not as
a service as Burbe’s lawyer since he has not paid.
The Court held that the lawyer-client relationship was established the moment
Burbe sought for legal advice regarding his business. The lawyer owes fidelity to
both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship.
DOCTRINE/LAW/RULE: Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
FACTS:
1. Dominador Burbe filed a Complaint for the disbarment or suspension or any
other disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto Magulta to the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
2. In Burbe’s Sworn Statement, Burbe alleged that: 1) Magulta agreed to legally
represent him in a money claim and possible civil case, 2) Magulta prepared a
Demand letter and other legal documents pursuant to their agreement, 3)
Magulta demanded a Php 25 000 – filing fee, which was paid for by Burbe, 4)
Magulta claimed to have filed the case a week later, 5) After months of
waiting, Magulta brought Burbe to the Hall of Justice Building at Ecoland,
Davao to “follow up” on the case, 6) Sensing irregularity, Burbe went to to
the Office of the Clerk of Court and verified himself if the Magulta’s
complaint was ever filed and was told that there was no record of it at all, 7)
Burbe confronted Magulta the following day, 8) After showing certification,
Magulta confessed that he has used the filing fee for his own purpose, 9)
Magulta offered to reimburse Burbe by issuing two checks, post-dated June 1
and 5, in the amounts of Php 12 000 and Php 8 000.
3. For the inconvenience, treatment, and deception, Burbe filed a Complaint
against Atty. Magulta due to misappropriation of funds.
4. In his Answer to the Order of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
Magulta denied the allegations “for being totally outrageous and baseless”.
Magulta contends that he only drafted the Demand letter and other legal
documents against Regwill Industries Inc. as a favor to one of his law
partners who identified Burbe as a kumpadre. He also contends that he agreed
to draft another Demand letter upon the request of Burbe’s business partner,
Mr. Said Sayre. That he was not paid for the 3-hour meeting for the Regwill
case and other legal documents and research requested by Burbe.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Magulta can be held liable for the
misappropriation of client’s funds? - YES
HELD/RATIO:
1. IBP’s recommendation: suspension from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.
2. Lawyers must always exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution and
defense of the client’s cause. Members of the the Bar must safekeep the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
profession.
3. The lawyer-client relationship was established the moment Burbe sought for
legal advice regarding his business. To constitute professional employment, it
is not essential that the client employed the attorney professionally or ay
previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid, promised or
charged; neither is it material that the consulted attorney does not handle the
case after his service was sought.
4. Laywer-client relation can exist amidst the close personal relationship of the
lawyer and the client. That it can exist after the non-payment of the former’s
fees. Magulta was duty bound to file the Demand letter at the soonest possible
time to protect Burbe’s interests. This is reflected in Rule 18.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility that provides that lawyers should not neglect
legal matter entrusted to them.
5. The practice of Law is a profession and not a business. That the practice of
law is a noble calling that can withstand without making much money.
6. Magulta violated the ride that lawyers must be careful in handling money
entrusted to them. This is in accordance to Rule 16.01 of the CPR that states
lawyers shall hold in trust the client’s money and properties that may come in
their possession.
RULING: Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and
18. 03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a year.
The Lawyer and Client: Conflict of Interest – Pacana vs Pascual Jr
Pacana, Jr. Vs. Pascual-Lopez
Supreme Court (A.C no. 8243) Per Curiam
Nature of Case: Administrative Case
SUMMARY: Maricel Pascual-Lopez was faced with a disbarment case on the
violation of her lawyer’s oath, representing conflict of interest, and acting with
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES: Conflict of Interest, Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS:
Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez allegedly violated rule 9.02 and 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
A disbarment case was filed against Pascual-Lopez for representing
conflict of interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
Multitel International Holdings Corporation (Multitel) was besieged by
demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure of its
investment schemes.
Rolando Pacana, Jr. Sought the advice of Pascual-Lopez. The latter helped
him prepare for the standard quitclaims to the creditors, despite no formal document
was signed between the parties.
Some time later, Pacana received a demand letter from Pascual-Lopez
asking for the immediate settlement of funds invested by Pascual-Lopez’s clients in
Multitel. The latter also convinced Pacana to divest all his interests including the
funds assigned to him by Multitel in order to be absolved for any liability.
Pascual-Lopez continuously asked money from Pacana for safekeeping
and collections and sales held as assignee of Multitels properties. Pascual-Lopez
also warned Pacana not to return to the Philippines from his trip to the US because
numerous arrest warrants and a “hold departure order” had been issued against him
Pascual-Lopez claimed she was doing her best to clear Pacana’s name. Despite this,
Pacana returned to the Philippines and immediately following his return, Pascual-
Lopez told him he has been cleared of charges.
Pascual-Lopez informed Pacana that she is going to share some of the
money she has accumulated as attorney’s fee, but she failed to fulfill this promise
and constantly evaded Pacana.
Pacana demanded a full accounting of all the money, documents, and
properties given to Pascual-Lopez, but what he received was an inadequate report.
Pacana filed an affidavit-complaint against Pascual-Lopez before the
Integrated Bar of the Philipipnes, and Pascual-Lopez answered that she is not the
lawyer of Pacama, claiming she only offered legal advice as a friend.
Pascual-Lopez insisted that she represented the investors of Multitel and
simply mediated between Pacana and Multitel. She also questioned the
admissibility of the electronic evidence allegedly sent by her to Pacana was of
doubtful authenticity.
The IBP issued a report and recommendation finding that there was a
lawyer-client relationship between Pacana and Pascual-Lopez and the latter violated
her duty to be candid, fair, and loyal to her client when she allowed herself to
represent conflicting interests and failed to render a full accounting of the cash
properties entrusted to her. Disbarment was recommended.
Pascual-Lopez moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Then,
elevating the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pascual-Lopez represented conflicting interests.
HELD/RULE/RATIO:
Yes, Pascual-Lopez represented conflicting interests.
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by writtten consent of all
concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.
Pascual-Lopez must have known that her act of constantly and
actively communicating with Pacana, who was being bombarded by demands
from investors of Multitel, eventually established their attorney-client
relationship.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf
The Lawyer and Client: Conflict of Interest – Pacana vs Pascual Jr
of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his
duty to opposite it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will have to be opposed by him when he argues for the other.
Likewise, there is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the service
will require the attorney to perform an act that will injuriously affect his first
client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be
called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through the first connection.
Pascual-Lopez took advantage of Pacana’s situation, and also violated
Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that states that a lawyer shall
not divide or stipulate to divide, a fee for legal serivces with persons not licensed to
practice the law except when there is a pre-existing agreement, or when a lawyer
undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer. Pascual-
Lopez toyed with decency and good taste.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION:
The Supreme Court ruled to disbar Pascual-Lopez for representing
conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct
in violation of her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professioanl Responsibility.
Pacana Jr. v. Pascual-Lopez
INTRODUCTION:
Respondent Rolando Pacana, Jr. filed a admnistrative complaint against Atty.
Maricel Pascual-Lopez on the grounds of violating provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibilty.
FACTS:
• Pacana was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications Corporation
(MCC). It is an affiliate company of Multitel Int’l Holdings (Multitel). They
changed their name to Precedent Communications Corporation (Precedent).
Multitel was given demand letters from its members and investors due to failure
of its investment schemes.
• Pacana sought the help of Atty. Lopez who was a member of the Couples for
Christ in which complainant and his wife was also a part of.
• Pacana claims that there had already been an establishment of a client-lawyer
relationship just without any formal document because of his disclosure of his
involvement and interests in Precedent. In turn Lopez gave him legal advice and
even helped him prepare standard quitclaims for creditors. A formal retainer
agreement was not signed.
• Pacana received a demand letter from Lopez asking for the immediate settlement
of the latter’s Multitel clients. The reason was for the appeasement of her Multitel
clients which were the defrauded investors against Pacana. Complainant gave
Lopez, first 900,000php then 1M php to be used in this case.
• Their communication continued even when Pacana was in the states. Lopez says
not to return because of several arrest warrants against Pacana and that he may be
implicated in the case of Multitel President’s arrest.
• When Pacana got back to the country, Lopez thanked him for earing 12.5M php
as attorney’s fees and was willing to give 2M php in appreciation for his help.
This never happened and later invested the 2M php on a business venture in his
behalf.
• Lopez repeatedly ignored Pacana’s request for accounting. Thus Pacana filed a
case with the IBP for Lopez’s disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lopez had violated Rule 15.03 on representing conflicting
interests
HELD/RATIO: YES.
• Lopez cannot say that she was only helping out Pacana by giving him legal
advice because they were friends. At that time, she was already privy to the cause
of the opposing parties who had been referred to her by the SEC.
• Lopez claims that there was no formal agreement that happened for the
establishment of a client-lawyer relation. Though IBP was correct in saying that,
“Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an
attorney; the contract may be express or implied.
• Since Lopez is representing the opposing parties, the most decent and ethical
thing for her to do is to suggest to Pacana to get another lawyer or desist from
being a representative for the Multitel
investors.
• Rule 15.03- A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of facts.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION:
Wherefore, respondent Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby DISBARRED for
representing conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and
deceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility
The Lawyer and Client: Atty-Client Privilege – Regala vs Sandiganbayan
Regala vs Sandiganbayan
Teodoro R. Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion,
Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin and Eduardo U. Escuaeto, petitioners vs
The Honorable Sandiganbayan, First Division, Republich of the Philippines acting
through the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and Raul S. Roco,
respondents.
[Supreme Court ] [G.R. No 108113] [September 20, 1996] [KAPUNAN, J]
Nature of Case: A petition for certiorari to annul the resolution of the respondent
Sandiganbayan
SUMMARY: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari against the
Sandiganbayan due to the denial of petitioner’s motion to be excluded from a
complaint involving alleged ill-gotten wealth. PCGG offered that they can be
excluded from the complaint if they provide the identity of their clients.
However, petitioners contend that as lawyers they cannot be ordered to reveal
the identity of their clients.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES:
Section 24 of the Rules of Court - Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 15
FACTS:
The matters raised in this case are traced back to when (PCGG) filed a complaint
before the Sandiganbayan against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. for the recovery of
alleged ill-gotten wealth.
In the Complaint, the petitioners, who are lawyers and partners in the ACCRA law
firm, were sued as co-defendants because they are believed to be conspiring with
each other and with Cojuangco in setting up through the use of coconut levy
funds, the financial and corporate framework and structures that lead to the
establishment of UCPB, UNICOM and more. It is also said that through insidious
means and machinations, the petitioners have allowed the ACCRA Investments
Corporation, being a wholly-owned investment arm, become a holder of 15
million shares which represent 3.3% of the total outstanding capital stock of
UCPB.
The petitioners answered the complaint by saying that the legal services offered
and made available to the firm are legitimate lawyering services which include
organizing and acquiring business organizations, acting as incorporators or
stockholders, and delivering to clients the corresponding documents of their
equity holdings.
PCGG filed another Motion this time excluding one of the ACCRA lawyers,
namely, Raul Roco, as party-defendant on the basis of his promise to reveal the
identity of the principals for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the
companies involved in the case.
This lead to Petitioners demanding that they be given the same privilege as Roco.
However, PCGG, demanded that the petitioners should: (a) disclosure the identity
of their clients, (b) submit the documents proving the attorney-client relationship
and (c) submit the deeds of assignment that were executed in favor of their client,
in order for the petitioners to be excluded from the Complaint.
Petitioners refused to comply to the conditions of PCGG contending that the
attorney-client privilege gives them the right not to reveal the identity of their
client. Thus, Sandiganbayan denied the exclusion of petitioners in the Complaint.
Issues
 Whether or not the fiduciary duty can be asserted in refusing to disclose
the name of petitioners’ client in the case at bar
Holdings
YES. Petitioners have the right to not reveal the identity of their clients as it would
be a breach of their fiduciary duty owing to their clients because the facts of the
case fall within the recognized exceptions of sustaining the privileged
information. In other words, if the Court allows the demands of the PCGG, then
the lawyers would be charged with breaching the attorney-client privileges. The
Court also finds that the PCGG’s conditional precedent of excluding the
petitioners from the Complaint is a violation of the lawyer-client confidentiality
privilege.
The Lawyer and Client: Atty-Client Privilege – Regala vs Sandiganbayan
The general rule is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client for the following reasons:
(1) The court has a right to know who the client is.
(2) The privilege only exists if there is proof of a client in the attorney-client
relationship.
(3) The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
(4) The opposing party should know his adversary.
However, this general rule also has exceptions.
(1) The client-identity is privilege when there is strong probability that the
revelation of the client’s identity would implicate the client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.
(2) The disclosure of the client’s identity would make the client vulnerable to
civil liability.
(3) A client’s name can be privileged if it’s a name that the government’s
lawyers can use as a chain of testimony to convict an individual or entity.
(4) When the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential
because if such revelation was done then it would result in the entire
transaction.
Thus, these exceptions tells us that the information relating to the identity of the
client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s name itself has
an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal client
confidences.
The case at bar fulfills two exceptions to the general rule. In this case, the
disclosure of the client’s name would lead to the client’s connection with the very
fact in issue of the case, which is privileged information, because the privilege,
protects the subject matter or substance. It is deduced from the demands of the
PCGG that the clients consulted the petitioners in their capacity as lawyers with
regard to the structure, framework, and set-up of the corporation in question
wherein the petitioner gave their legal advice. Petitioners have a legitimate fear
that the identification of their clients would implicate them in the very activity for
which legal advice was sought like the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
And lastly, the revelation of the client’s name would obviously provide the
necessary link for the prosecution to build its case, where none otherwise exist.
The prosecution cannot a file a case and cannot use the attorney-client privilege to
build a case. The prosecution must rely on evidence from their own sources and
not from compelled testimony requiring them to reveal the name of their clients
leading to the revelation of the transaction which may or may not be illegal
Section 24 of the Rules of court titled ”Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication” describes persons who cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence. It states that 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, can an
attorneys 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.
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court describes the duties of a lawyer to his client which
includes the preservation of the secrets of the client ,and accepting no
compensation in connection with his client’s business except from his client or
with his client’s knowledge or approval. These duties are explicitly mandated by
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Canon 15, a lawyer owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client but should be performed within the
boundaries of the law. In other words, an attorney is not a gun for hire. The
attorney-client privilege cannot be used if the client seeks legal advice to
accomplish unlawful acts or illegal purposes because it is not in the professional
character of a lawyer to give advice on the commission of a crime. When the
communications between attorney and client involve illegal or unlawful content
and conspiracy, the lawyer needs to divulge that information.
Disposition
The Court rules that the Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is ordered to exclude
petitioners as parties-defendants in the Complaint filed by PCGG involving
Eduardo Cojuangco.
Separate Opinions:
VITUG, J (Concurred) : The Republic is attempting to establish a case not from
the strength of its own evidence but on what it could elicit from a counsel against
his client.
DAVIDE, JR. (Dissent) : The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client
relationships is not a cause to exclude a party. It is merely a ground for
disqualification of a witness and may only be invoked at the appropriate time, i.e.,
when a lawyer stands as a witness.
The Lawyer and Client: Atty-Client Privilege – Regala vs Sandiganbayan
Puno, J. (Dissent) : The Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion
when it misdelineated the metes and bounds of the attorney-client privilege by
failing to recognize the exception. But I part ways with the majority when it rule
that petitioners need not prove they fall within the exceptions of the general rule.
It is not enough to assert the privilege. The person claiming the privilege or its
exceptions has the obligation to present the underlying facts demonstrating the
existence of privilege.
Regala v. Sadiganbayan, First Division
Nature of Case: Civil Case
SUMMARY:
The complaints is about ACCRA Lawyers allegedly conspired with Eduardo
Cojuanco, Jr. in setting up the financial and corporate framework and structures
that led to the establishment of UCPB, UNICOM , and others, through the use of
the coconut levy funds. The PCGG’s case included ACCRA law firm however
they wanted to cut a deal that they would be excluded from the corruption case if
they just revealed the identity of their client. The issue is whether or not the
lawyer’s fiduciary duty may be asserted in refusing to disclose the identity of
clients (name of ACCRA LAWYERS' clients) under the facts and circumstances
obtaining in the instant case?
The court ruled Yes. The general rule in our jurisdiction is that a lawyer may not
invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES:
• Section 24 of the Rules of Court
• Section 20of the Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
• Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
• Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
Facts:
This is a civil case complaint before Sandiganbayan by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against Eduardo M. Cojuanco, Jr, for
the recovery of the alleged illgotten wealth, which includes shares of stocks in the
named corporations at the PCGG Case No.0033. The petitioners, composed of
Regala, Angara, Cruz, Concepcion, Vinluan, Lazatin, Escueta, and Hayudini
(hereinafter ACCRA Lawyers), in this case are all partners in Angara, Abello,
Concepcion, Regala, and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA Law Firm). Also, the rivate
respondent Raul Roco is a partner in ACCRA. ACCRA Law Firm offers legal
services for its clients like organization and acquisition of business associations
and/or organizations, with the correlative and incidental services where its
members acted as incorporators, or simply, as stockholders.
In the PCGG Case No. 0033, ACCRA Lawyers allegedly conspired with Eduardo
Cojuangco, Jr. in setting up through the use of coconut levy funds the financial
corporate framework and structures that led to the establishment of UCPB,
UNICOM, and others. ACCRA Law Firm has been allegedly using its ACCRA
Investment Corporation, a wholly-owned investment arm, and was a holder of
around 3.3% of the total capital stock of UCPB (about 15 Million shares) as of
March 1987.
The PCGG sought to prove that through the ACCRA Lawyers that Mr. Cojuangco
is their client and it was him who furnished all the monies to the subscription
payment. Thus, ACCRA AWYERS acted as dummies, nominees and/or agents
by allowing themselves, among theirs, to be used as instrument in accumulating
ill-gotten wealth through government concessions, etc.
Such acts constitute gross abuse of official position and authority, flagrant breach
of public trust, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Constitution and laws of
the Republic of the Philippines. On August 20, 1991, PCGG filed a filed a
“Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint” and “Third Amended Complaint”
which excluded Roco from the complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 as party-
defendant. The PCGG based the exclusion of Roco on the undertaking that he will
reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as nominees/stockholder in
the companies involved in PCGG Case No. 33. ACCRA Lawyers then filed a
Counter-Motion that PCGG should similarly grant the same treatment to them
(exclusion as parties-defendants).
Thus, the PCGG set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion of
petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients; (b) submission
of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the submission
of the deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering
their respective shareholdings.
The Sandiganbayan DENIED the exclusion of ACCRA Lawyers in the PCGG
Case No. 33 for their refusal to comply with the conditions required by the PCGG.
ACCRA Lawyers then asked for a reconsideration of the above resolution but the
respondent Sandiganbayan denied the same. This makes ACCRA lawyers filed a
petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 105938, invoking as one of the
grounds: The Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in
not holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege prohibits
petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their client(s) and the
other information requested by the PCGG. Under the peculiar facts of this case,
the attorney-client privilege includes the identity of the client(s). The factual
The Lawyer and Client: Atty-Client Privilege – Regala vs Sandiganbayan

disclosures required by the PCGG are not limited to the identity of petitioners subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistant.
ACCRA lawyers’ alleged client(s) but extend to other privileged matters. 3) Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been
Issue: previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential
Whether or not the lawyer’s fiduciary duty may be asserted in refusing to disclose Thus, a disclosure would then reveal client confidences and revelation of the
the identity of clients (name of ACCRA Laywer’s clients) in the case at bar? client's name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
Held: build its case, where none otherwise exists. It is the link that would inevitably
YES. The ACCRA Lawyers may refuse because of fiduciary duty. To have an form the chain of testimony necessary to convict the client of a crime. In the case
effective lawyer-client relationship there must exist a great deal confidence at bar, the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to the general rule
between lawyer and client to encourage a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow (Exceptions 1 & 3 above).
of information and in order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must Disposition:
invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and The Resolution of the respondent Sandiganbayan (First Division) is ANNULED
professional responsibility. and SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is further ordered to exclude
The Rules of Court provide that the attorney-client privilege is defined as ACCRA Lawyers as partiesdefendants
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. - The following in SB Civil Case No. 0033 entitled ‘Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo
persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: Cojuangco, Jr., et al.”
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, can an attorneys 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. This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that:
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
The following is the General rule and exception regarding Attorney client
privilege
1) The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
2) The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client.
3) Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
4) Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a
general rule, know his adversary.
Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however qualified by
some important exceptions.
1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the
clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought
the lawyer’s advice.
2) Client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the
Hierarchy of the Philippine Judicial System: Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Courts – Diocese of Bacolod vs
Commission on Elections

Roxas vs. De Zuzuarregui Jr.

[ Court of Appeals ]|[G.R. No. 152072 ]|[Jan. 26, 2006]|[Chico-Nazario J.]
ROMEO G. ROXAS and SANTIAGO N. PASTOR, petitioners
vs.
ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUAREGUI, PACITA JAVIER, ELIZABETH R.
GONZALES, JOSEFINA R. DAZA, ELIAS REYES, NATIVIDAD REYES, TERESITA REYES, JOSE REYES,
and ANTONIO REYES, respondents

SUMMARY: The respondents (Zuzuarregui) employed the services of the

petitioners (Atty. Roxas and Pastor). After the case, there was a dispute to how
much in legal fees should be paid to Atty. Roxas and Pastor. The Court held
that the petitioners should return the excess payment to the respondents
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES: Canon 20 Rule 20.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, Section 24 rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

FACTS:

The case began when the National Housing Authority filed an expropriation proceeding against the
Zuzuarregui’s. These were for the lands found in Antipolo, Rizal with the area amounting to 1,790,570.36 sqm. The
letter of agreement states that the price of P11 per square meter would merit legal fee’s for Atty Roxas and Pastor, at
the settlement the NHA and Atty. Roxas and Pastor reached a compromise agreement to price the property at P19.50
which is above the agreed price of P11 and from that P19.50, Atty. Roxas and Pastor were to be paid P2.50 and the
Zuzuarregui’s were to receive P17.50.

The NHA then released payments for these lands in NHA Bearer Bonds. The first payment paid to Atty.
Roxas amounted to P20,000,000 which P15,000,000 was received by the Zuzuarregui’s. The next payment then
amounted to P34,500,000 with the Zuzuarregui’s receiving P30,070,000. Beatriz Zuzuarregui then issued another
receipt for P450,000 to Atty. Roxas.

All in all, the sum received by Atty Roxas and Pastor amounted to P54,500,000 while the Zuzuarregui only
received P30,520,000 in NHA bonds.

The Zuzuarreguis then sent a letter (via new counsel) to Atty Roxas and Pastor. This letter was an
ultimatum for the attys to return the lacking bonds within 10 days or be sued.

Atty Roxas and Pastor answered back that the amount they got did not go to them and the case then ensued.
ISSUE/S: Are the legal fee’s collected by Atty. Roxas and Pastor excessive?
HELD/RULE/RATIO: Issue Whether or not the Legal Fees of Atty Roxas and Pastor excessive Held Yes.
According to Canon 20 Rule 20.01 of the code of professional responsibility, a lawyer should only charge fair and
reasonable fee's. Also Section 24 Rule 138 states that an attorney is entitled to have and recover from his client no
more than a reasonable amount for his services with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the
controversy the extent of the services rendered and the professional standing of the attorney.
The court found that the P23,980,000 collected by Atty. Roxas and Pastor which is equivalent 44% of the Just
compensation paid is undeniably excessive under the circumstances, that it was not a full-blown hearing but a case
that ended in Compromise agreement, which is why the court demanded that Atty. Roxas and Pastor return
P17,073,224.84 to the Zuzuarrguis.