Elibena A. Cabiles vs. Atty. Leandro S. Cedo (A.C. No.

10245, August 16, 2017)

Facts:
Complainant Elibena Cabiles filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) seeking the disbarment of Atty. Leandro Cedo for neglecting the two cases, a
labor case and a criminal case.

Cabiles, engaged the services of respondent lawyer, Cedo, to handle an illegal dismissal case,
wherein Cabiles was the respondent. Cedo was paid Php5,500.00 for drafting therein
respondents' position paper and Php2,000.00 per appearance in the NLRC hearings. During the
hearing only Danilo Ligbos, the complainant therein, showed up. According to Cabiles, Cedo
misled her by claiming that it was Danilo who was absent during the said hearing. Aside from
this, Cedo failed to file a Reply and negligently handled the appeal before the NLRC. Moreover
Cedo failed to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance in the
position paper and in the memorandum of appeal that he prepared. Cabiles presented a
certification issued on June 29, 2010 by the MCLE Office that respondent lawyer had not at all
complied with the first, second, and third compliance periods of the (MCLE) requirement.

Anent the second case, Cabiles claimed that, despite payment of his professional fees, Cedo did
not exert any effort to seasonably file her Complaint for unjust vexation before the City
Prosecutor's Office; that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City dismissed her
Complaint for unjust vexation on the ground of prescription.
The IBP’s investigating commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty of having violated Canons
5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension for
two years. Aside from respondent lawyer's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements, the
Investigating Commissioner also found him grossly negligent in representing his clients,
particularly (1) in failing to appear in the NLRC hearing, and file the necessary responsive
pleading; (2) in failing to advise and assist his clients who had no knowledge of, or were not
familiar with, the NLRC rules of procedure, in filing their appeal and; 3) in failing to file
seasonably the unjust vexation complaint before the city prosecutor's office, in consequence of
which it was overtaken by prescription.
The IBP Board of Governors reduced the suspension to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Cedo violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibilitys?

Ruling:
Atty. Cedo violated Canon 5, 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Violation of Canon 5

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACH1EVE HIGH ST AND
ARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND
ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an additional
requirement to enable them to practice law. This is to ensure that they keep abreast with law
and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the
practice of law. Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as
a delinquent IBP member. In Arnado v. Adaza, the Court administratively sanctioned therein
respondent lawyer for his non-compliance with four MCLE Compliance periods, in accordance
with Section 12(d) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations, even if therein respondent attended
an MCLE Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance therein would only
cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was still considered delinquent and
had to make up for the other compliance periods.
In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed in the said labor
case the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance for the Third
Compliance Period, i.e., from April 15, 2007 to April 14, 2010, considering that NLRC case had
been pending in 2009. In fact, upon checking with the MCLE Office, Cabiles discovered that
respondent lawyer had failed to comply with the three MCLE compliance periods. For this
reason, there is no doubt that respondent lawyer violated Canon 5.
The circumstances of this case indicated that respondent lawyer was guilty of gross negligence
for failing to exert his utmost best in prosecuting and in defending the interest of his client.
Hence, he is guilty of the following:
Violation of Canon 17 and 18 and Rule 18.03

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.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Furthermore, respondent lawyer's act of receiving an acceptance fee for legal services, only to
subsequently fail to render such service at the appropriate time, was a clear violation of Canons
17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent lawyer did not diligently and fully attend to the cases that he accepted, although
he had been fully compensated for them.
Case law further illumines that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not merely
reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also
consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled
cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or
the court to prod him or her to do so.
Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. While
such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently
held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation.
A lawyer 'is expected to exert his best efforts and [utmost] ability to [protect and defend] his
client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of
justice." However, in the two cases for which he was duly compensated, respondent lawyer was
grossly remiss in his duties as counsel. He exhibited lack of professionalism, even indifference,
in the defense and protection of Elibena's rights that resulted in her losing the two cases.
Failure to comply with MCLE requirements warranted a six-month suspension. In a previous
Supreme Case, a lawyer violating Canons 17 and 18 where a lawyer failed to file a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals, the lawyer was penalized with a six-month suspension. Cedo
was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
 Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, et al. Vs. Vigilio L. Mazaredo
(G.R. No. 201359, September 23, 2015)

Facts:
Respondent Virgilio L. Mazaredo has been working for petitioner manning agency Magsaysay
Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) since 1996. On February 4, 2009, while aboard M/V
"Tahitian Princess," respondent experienced back pain. Upon examination by the ship's doctor
Lana Strydom on March 12, 2009, the following diagnosis was issued: "a) uncontrolled
hypertension on medication; b) probable previous silent inferior myocardial infarct; c) left
ventricular hypertrophy; d) tachycardia (95-107); xxx f) needs CXR, Echo, Stress Test and
Angiogram; g) needs cardiologist specialist consultation; h) needs another seafarer's fitness to
work at sea medical before next contract x x x."
On March 22,2009, respondent was medically repatriated and immediately referred to the
company-designated physician. Petitioners did not provide medical and financial assistance
after respondent's initial diagnosis. Respondent sought opinion of an independent physician.
The medical examination results declared respondent unfit to resume work as seaman.
Respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for recovery of permanent total disabiity
and sickness benefits, reimbursement of medical and other expenses, and damages against
petitioner on the ground that his sickness was work related.
In Petitioner’s Position Paper, Reply and Rejoinder, it argued that the company-designated
physician in a medical report stated that respondent’s sickness was not work related.
The Labor Arbiter in his decision noted that there was no Medical Report attached. On appeal
in the NLRC and CA and before the Supreme Court petitioner’s counsels repeatedly attempted
to misled the courts that a Medical Report was attached supporting petitioner’s claim that
respondent’s sickness was not work related even when no medical report was attached to the
pleadings filed with the courts.
Issue:
Whether or not the counsels for petitioner violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
when they mislead the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, the CA and the SC that a medical report was
attached to prove that respondent’s sickness is not work related.

Held:
The counsel for petitioner violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when they mislead
the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA. All throughout the proceedings of this case, or for a
period of six years - to deceive and mislead the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, the CA, and this Court,
into believing that a favorable March 27, 2009 "Medical Report" of petitioners' company-
designated physician exists which supposedly shows that respondent's condition was not work-
connected and not compensable, when in fact there is none. Indeed, the CA was duped, and it
fell for Tria and Pampolina's scheme. This Court has taken pains to review in earnest - again and
again - the record, in order to locate and determine what the March 27, 2009 medical report
contained, but it could not be found. Yet in their pleadings filed before this Court, Atrys. Tria
and Pampolina continued to refer to the document. Instead, it appears that in truth and in fact,
there is no such document: from the start, the Labor Arbiter already noted its absence; in fact,
the Labor Arbiter even admonished respondents to "carefully go over the evidence they
present or inadvertently fail to attach." But just the same, the CA was deceived to the point of
declaring that respondent "was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease and the
company-designated physician opined that his illness is not work-related and found to be
generic in origin"56 when no such medical opinion exists on record. It would appear, therefore,
that such "medical report" was contrived in order to satisfy the legal requirement that the
company-designated physician must make a definitive assessment of the employee's fitness to
work in order to justify a denial of disability benefits.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that " a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct" (Rule 1.01); he "shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause" (Rule 1.03); he "shall not
do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice" (Rule 10.01); and he "shall not knowingly x x x assert as a fact
that which has not been proved" (Rule 10.02).

Petitioner’s counsel were warned that asnother transgression shall warrant the initiation of
proceedings for their disbarment. Suffice it to state that lawyers should not transcend the
bounds of propriety and commit a travesty before this Court by willfully, intentionally and
deliberately resorting to falsehood and deception in handling their client's case in order to
misguide, obstruct and impede the proper administration of justice.
 Patrocina H. Salabao Vs. Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr.
(A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015)
Facts:
Complainant narrates that in 1995 she filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for his deceitful or
fraudulent conduct of taking her real property situated in Taguig City. After hearing, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162, Pasig City issued its resolution in her favor in 2002.

Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio. From then on, Complainant
complained that Respondent had made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and
disregard for her rights as a litigant.
In this case, the judgment in favor of complainant had become final and executory by July 27,
2005. Respondent however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12) motions and cases in
various courts subsequent to the Entry of Judgment:

Regional Trial Court of Taguig City:

1. Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April 27,2006


2. Motion to Admit Affidavit of Third-Party Claimant

3. Motion for Early Resolution

4. Motion to Observe Judicial Courtesy while the case is pending appeal with the Court of
Appeals

5. Urgent Motion to Defer/Suspend Execution in view of the Order of the CA

6. Urgent Motion to Reconsider Order

Court of Appeals:

1. Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals

2. Motion for Reconsideration

3. Petition for Certiorari

4. Urgent Motion to Reiterate the Issuance of Order for Judicial Courtesy

Supreme Court:
 1. Petition for Certiorari

2. Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order

Complainant then complained that Respondent had done more than enough to suppress her
rights as a winning litigant and filed this case for abuse of processes pursuant to Rule
10.03 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Villaroel violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held:
Atty. Villaroel violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. While it is true that lawyers owe
"entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be emphasized enough that their first
and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of justice." Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Thus, in the use of Court
processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be tempered by the paramount consideration that
justice be done to all parties involved, and the lawyer for the losing party should not stand in
the way of the execution of a valid judgment. This is a fundamental principle in legal ethics and
professional responsibility that has iterations in various forms:
Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes. (Emphasis supplied)

Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice,
any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes
misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him.

From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear that respondent's
intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment.
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by abusing Court
processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of a final judgment, and feigning
ignorance of Ms duties as an officer of the court. He has breached his sworn duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 10.03
and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the
Rules of Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable for his actions.
 Davao Import Distributors, Inc. (DIMDI) Vs. Atty. Johnny Landero
(A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015)
Facts:
Sometime in August 1997, complainant Davao Import Distributors, Inc. (complainant), through
its representative and branch manager, Jimmy Pandili (Pandili), engaged the services of
respondent to file a Complaint[2] against Angelita Librando and Juanito Du (Librando and Du,
respectively) for the recovery of one split type air-conditioner with replevin and damages.
Apparently, Librando purchased on installment basis a split-type floor-mounted air-conditioner
from complainant in the amount of P86,740.00 which the former installed in her beauty salon
located in a commercial building owned by Du. When Librando failed to pay, Pandili went to her
salon only to find out that the same had already closed down. Left in the premises, however,
was the air-conditioning unit Librando purchased from complainant. Claiming that Du refused
to release the unit to complainant as he allegedly intended to retain the same as a lien for
Librando’s unpaid rentals, complainant filed the said case.
On the scheduled date of pre-trial, respondent failed to appear. Pandili also failed to appear
during the pre-trial because respondent failed to inform Pandili of the scheduled pre-trial. As a
result, the case was dismissed for non-suit. Complainant disbursed to respondent money for
filing of a petition for review. Unfortunately, respondent failed to file the petition for review
after asking for an extension before the Court of Appeals to file the petition. For failing to file
the petition for review, after the CA has granted the prayer for extension, the CA dismissed the
appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Johnny P. Landero violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Held:
Atty. Johnny P. Landero violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent himself admitted that he deliberately did not appear at the scheduled pre-trial
conference despite notice and that he did not file a petition for review after receiving from his
client the payment for docket fees and after being granted by the CA an extension of time to
file the same. From these facts alone, it cannot be denied that respondent’s acts constitute
misconduct which at the same time amount to violations of the CPR.
The Court finds respondent’s reason to be unacceptable if not downright disrespectful to the
courts. The same only underscores his blatant violation of Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the CPR,
which states:
CANON 12 – A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN
THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

xxxx

Rule 12.03 – A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.
 Daria O. Daring Vs. Atty. riz Tingalon L. Davis
(A.C. No. 9395, November 12, 2014)
Facts:
Complainant was the owner and operator of Nashville Country Music Lounge. She leased from
Benjie Pinlac (Pinlac) a building space located at No. 22 Otek St., Baguio City where she
operated the bar.

Complainant entered into a retainership agreement with respondent and his partner Atty.
Amos Saganib Sabling (Atty. Sabling).

Pinlac terminated the lease contract with complainant because was deliquent with the rental
payments. Respondent, Pinlac and Novie Balageo went to complainant’s music bar, inventoried
all the equipment therein, and informed complainant that Balageo would take over the
operation of the bar. According to complainant, respondent acted as a business partner of
Balageo.
Complainant likewise alleged that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and Balageo before
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Baguio City. At that time, Davis & Sabling
Law Office was still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement remained subsisting and in force.
However, respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in that ejectment case and filed, on
behalf of the latter, an Answer with Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent. In respondent’s comment to the
complaint for disbarment, he denied participation in the takeover or acting as a business
partner of Balageo in the operation of the bar. He insisted that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner
who initiated the retainership proposal and was in fact the one who was able to convince
complainant to accept the law office as retainer. Respondent maintained that he never
obtained any knowledge or information regarding the business of complainant who used to
consult only with Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having representated Balageo in
the ejectment case, but denied that he took advantage of the Retainer Agreement.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held:
Respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
provides:
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.
“A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client.” The prohibition against
representing conflicting interests is absolute and the rule applies even if the lawyer has acted in
good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. In Quiambao v. Atty.
Bamba, this Court emphasized that lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.

We are not impressed. In Hilado v. David, reiterated in Gonzales v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr., this
Court held that a lawyer who takes up the cause of the adversary of the party who has engaged
the services of his law firm brings the law profession into public disrepute and suspicion and
undermines the integrity of justice. Thus, respondent’s argument that he never took advantage
of any information acquired by his law firm in the course of its professional dealings with the
complainant, even assuming it to be true, is of no moment. Undeniably aware of the fact that
complainant is a client of his law firm, respondent should have immediately informed both the
complainant and Balageo that he, as well as the other members of his law firm, cannot
represent any of them in their legal tussle; otherwise, they would be representing conflicting
interests and violate the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, respondent could have
simply advised both complainant and Balageo to instead engage the services of another lawyer.

Respondent was suspended for a period of six (6) months.

 Rolando Viray Vs. Atty. Eugenio T. Sanicas
(A.C. No. 7337 September 29, 2014)
Facts:

Complainant alleges that he engaged the services of respondent relative to a labor case he filed
against Ester Lopez and Teodoro Lopez III (spouses Lopez). On February 26, 2001, the Labor
Arbiter ruled in favor of complainant and a monetary award in the sum of Php 189,491.60 was
granted by the labor arbiter.

During the implementation of the writ, complainant discovered that respondent already
collected the total amount of Php 95,000.00 in installment from the spouses Lopez.
Complainant also discovered that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez that he is
authorized to receive payments on his behalf, when in truth and in fact he is
not. Consequently, complainant made several verbal demands to the respondent to remit to
him the amount of P95,000.00, less his attorney's fees of P20,000.00. But respondent did not
budge. Thus, complainant lodged a complaint before the Office of the Punong Barangay of
Brgy. Felisa, Bacolod City. Respondent, however, ignored the summons to attend a conference
before the barangay to resolve the issues.

Complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment/gross immoral conduct before the
Supreme Court. Respondent in his comment justified his action by asserting that complainant
authorized him to receive payment. He argued that he is also authorized to apply the sum of
money he received from spouses Lopez to pay for his attorney's fees and reimbursement for all
expenses he incurred for the case. In fact, according to complainant the Php 95,000.00 was not
enough to cover for his attorney’s fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to promptly account
to his client the funds received in the course of his professional engagement and return the
same upon demand.

Held:
Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. "The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the
utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers
because of their fiduciary relationship." Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code imposes upon the
lawyer the duty to "account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client." Rule 16.03 thereof, on the other hand, mandates that "[a] lawyer shall deliver the
funds x x x of his client when due or upon demand."
In this case, respondent on separate occasions from received payments for attorney's fees and
partial payments for monetary awards on behalf of complainant from spouses Lopez. But
despite the number of times he had been receiving payment, respondent neither informed the
complainant of such fact nor rendered an accounting thereon. It was only when the writ of
execution was implemented when complainant discovered that spouses Lopez had already
given respondent the total amount of P95,000.00 as partial payment for the monetary awards
granted to him by the labor tribunal.

To make matters worse, respondent withheld and refused to deliver to the complainant said
amount, which he merely received on behalf of his client, even after demand. Complainant
brought the matter before the barangay, but respondent simply ignored the same. Such failure
and inordinate refusal on the part of the respondent to render an accounting and return the
money after demand raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. His
unjustified withholding of the funds also warrants the imposition of disciplinary action against
him.
The evidences of respondent do not support his claim that he was authorized to receive the
payments. Neither is there proof that complainant agreed to pay him additional 25% attorney's
fees and reimburse him for all expenses he allegedly incurred in connection with the case. In
any event, even assuming that respondent was authorized to receive payments, the same does
not exempt him from his duty of promptly informing his client of the amounts he received in
the course of his professional employment. "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." "The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his
attorney's fees on the money in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the
obligation to make a prompt accounting." Moreover, a lawyer has no right "to unilaterally
appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him
attorney's fees."
In sum, respondent's failure to immediately account for and return the money when due and
upon demand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral
soundness, and warrants the imposition of disciplinary action."
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. Respondent was ordered
to return the net amount of ₱85,500.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality
of the Resolution until the full amount is returned.