ENRIQUEZ v ATTY.

LAVADIA, Jr.
A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015
Canon 18
Canon 18.03
Facts

▪ Complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lavadia

for gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of
duties as a lawyer.
▪ Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia Jr. was the assigned attorney for
the case of Teodulo Enriquez for the crime of forcible entry
filed against him by Ernesto Ouano.
Facts
Action of Respondent
Attorney for the
Complainant’s criminal case
Submission of position papers
and affidavits
Period of Filing Results / Consequence/ Court
Decision
Within 30 days from the receipt FAILED to file: Defendant is in
of the pre-trial order default.

Filed notice of appeal Dismissed: Failed to file the

appeal after more than 71 days

Moved for reconsideration Denied: Court already granted

4 months of extension

ENRIQUEZ FILED A DISBARMENT CASE for failing to file

necessary pleadings, that caused them great damage and
prejudice.
Action of Respondent Period of Filing Results / Consequence/ Court Respondent’s Reason
Attorney to his Decision
Facts
DISBARMENT CASE
File a comment for the Within 10 days from Failed to file his comment. Heavy case load and
Disbarment case receipt thereof. family problems
against him
File 2 motions for Within 60 days Failed to file his comment. Wife’s continued illness
extension
File a motion for Within 30 days (last Still, he FAILED!
extension extension) The defendant must submit comment
to be held not in contempt.
File comment to be Within 10 days FAILED!! He moved from Tagbilaran
held not in contempt 1000.00 FINE or IMPRISONMENT for 5 to Cebu because of his
days and comply with previous wife’s illness caused by
“dark-beings”.
resolutions.
File his comment Within 30 days FAILED!!!
(The Court grants him 2000.00 FINE and required him to
again additional TIME) submit comment within 5 days, but
No record showed that he did file.
IBP’S Ruling

▪ Atty. Lavadia Jr. must be disbar.

▪ The IBP CBD found that not only did Atty. Lavadia cause material
prejudice to his clients by neglecting his duties as counsel in failing to
file the necessary pleadings to defend his client’s interest but he also
displayed a willfull defiant and cavalier attitude by repeatedly
defying the resolutions of the Court.
▪ Atty. Lavadia moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ Atty. Lavadia Jr. must be disbar.

▪ Lawyers bears responsibility to meet the profession’s exacting
standards.
Rule 11 – Lawyer is required to observe and maintain due respect to the
court and its judicial officers.
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.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection there with shall render him
liable.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ We granted Atty. Lavadia every opportunity to file his comment to

the complaint. In fine we have granted him a total of 155 days
extension to file his comment, in response to his repeated pleas.
▪ This disbarment case has dragged on for years while we gave Atty,
Lavadia every opportunity to file his comment. Despite the extended
time granted to him, he continued to do so.
▪ Such obstinate disobedience to the Court’s orders and merits
disciplinary actions.
▪ Disbarred!
MATTUS v. ATTY.
VILLASECA
A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013
Canon 18.03
Facts

▪ Gross and inexcusable negligence in handling criminal case.

▪ Complainant engaged the services of Atty. Albert Villaseca
for the criminal case of estafa thru falsification of public
document filed against her and her husband.
▪ The complainant maintained that she and her husband
were convicted due to Atty. Villaseca’s gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as their
counsel, hence the disbarment case.
Facts

▪ Complainant’s Allegations against Atty. Villaseca:

1. Was often absent during court hearings but still collected appearance
fees;
2. Frequently sought the postponement of trial when he was present;
3. Failed to ask the RTC to direct a NBI expert to examine the signatures of
the plaintiffs in the SPA.
4. Failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite the time granted by RTC,
only filed a memorandum.
5. Did not inform her the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and
the promulgation of judgment.
6. Erroneously indicated the wrong case number in the notice of appeal.
Facts

▪ Atty. Villaseca’s comment:

1. He made known to the complainant that the testimony of the
handwriting expert was necessary only if the prosecution would be
able to produce original copy of the SPA;
2. His absences during hearings, as well as his motions for
postponement were justified and were never intended for delay;
3. He did not collect appearance fees when he did not attend the
schedules hearings, that the fees he received were intended to
compensate him for his services in the other cases filed by the
complainant;
4. He immediately corrected the case number in the notice of appeal
when he discovered his error.
IBP’S Ruling

▪ Atty. Villaseca must be suspended for one (1) year from the practice
of law.
▪ His reckless and gross negligence deprived his clients of due process;
his actuations in the criminal case showed utter disregard for his
client’s life and liberty.
▪ He failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite the sufficient time
and waived his right to present evidence for the defense, opting
instead to file a memorandum only, thus led to the conviction of his
client.
IBP’S Ruling

▪ Atty. Villaseca must be suspended for one (1) year from the practice
of law.
▪ His reckless and gross negligence deprived his clients of due process;
his actuations in the criminal case showed utter disregard for his
client’s life and liberty.
▪ He failed to file a demurrer to evidence despite the sufficient time
and waived his right to present evidence for the defense, opting
instead to file a memorandum only, thus led to the conviction of his
client.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ The Court finds the evidence on record sufficient to support the IBP’s
findings.
▪ Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client his client with competence
and diligence.
▪ Rule 18.3 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ Atty. Villaseca’s failure to present evidence for the defense reveals his
lack of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court.
▪ A memorandum no matter how lengthy, should not be made a
substitute for testimonial, object or documentary evidence more so
in criminal case where a conviction would lead to dire consequences.
▪ In saying so, we are not insinuating that the RTC decision would have
tilted in favor of the defense had he presented the evidence.
▪ We simply stress that utmost fidelity and attention are demanded.
▪ A lawyer engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of
protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ Wherefore, Atty. Villaseca was SUSPENDED from practice of law for

five (5) years and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SANCHEZ v ATTY. AGUILOS
A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016
Canon 18
Rule 18.01-18.03
Facts

▪ This administrative case relates to the performance of duty of an

attorney towards his client in which the former is found and declared
to be lacking in knowledge and skill sufficient for the engagement.
▪ Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty.
Romeo Aguilos with misconduct for the latter’s refusal to return the
amount of P 70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services
despite his not having performed the contemplated professional
service.
Facts
▪ She sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in
then annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband.
▪ Acceptance Fee – P 150,000.00
Appearance Fee – P 5,000.00 / hearing
▪ Complainant gave initial amount of P 90,000.00 (March 2005)
▪ In May 2005, she learned the following circumstances:
a. he will only work on the case upon full payment of the acceptance
fee;
b. He contemplated to file a petition for legal separation instead of
annulment of marriage.
Facts
▪ Hence, she withdrew the case from the respondent and requested
the refund of the said amounts already paid, but he refused to do
the same.
▪ She sent a demand letter thru his new counsel stating to return her
payment less whatever amount of legal service he had already
performed.
▪ His constant refusal to return the amounts prompted her to bring an
administrative complaint against him in the IBP.
Facts (Respondent’s Answer)
He alleged the following:
▪ Complainant and her British fiancee sought his legal services to bring
the petition for the annulment of marriage;
▪ Based on his evaluation, the more appropriate will be legal
separation based on psychological incapacity of her husband;
▪ Both parties agreed for the P 150,000.00
▪ But the complainant’s party did not promptly respond for the
requirements he requested;
▪ She had spent the money for the payment of the balance.
Facts (Respondent’s Answer)
▪ Respondent admits that he received the demand letter, but he
dismissed it for lack of basis in law. He even wrote this part in his
comment in relation to the demand letter:

Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for

refund dated 15 August 2005 as a mere scrap of paper or should have
been addressed by her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ, who
unskillfully relied on the unverified information furnished to him, to
the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful
purpose.
IBP’S Ruling

▪ The respondent’s insistence that the petition must be legal

separation based on psychological incapacity was sanctionable
because he himself was apparently not conversant with the
grounds for legal separation.
▪ The rendered legal services must only be P 40,000.00 as an
acceptance fee, said value being the quantum meruit of his legal
service, thus he has to return P 30,000.00
▪ Respondent’s statement in the last part of his answer was uncalled
for and improper violating Canon 8.01 of CPR.
▪ ATTY. AGUILOS is hereby WARNED and ORDERED TO RETURN the
P 30,000.00 within 30 days.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ Respondent was liable for misconduct and he should be ordered to

return the entire amount received from the client.
▪ The grounds for legal separation is different from the grounds of
petition for annulment of marriage.
▪ The respondent misrepresented his professional competence and
skill to the complainant, as he did not know the distinction between
the grounds of the two.
▪ The respondent failed to live up the standards imposed on his an
attorney under Canon 18 of CPR
COURT’S Ruling

▪ CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence
Rule 18.01 – A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he
may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain
as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence shall render him liable.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ The IBP in favor of the respondent is way too generous.

▪ He deserved no compensation because he did not really begin to
perform the contemplated task.
▪ The respondent shall be fined in the amount of P 10,000.00 for his
misrepresentation of his professional competence, and ordered to
return P 70,000.00 received from the client with legal interest of 6%
per annum from the date of this decision until full payment.
COURT’S Ruling

▪ Lastly, respondent did not conduct himself as provided by Canon 8 of

CPR:
Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.”
ATTY. AGUILOS is hereby FINED P 10,000.00 for misrepresentation and
REPRIMANDS him for the use of offensive and improper language.
The Court ORDERS Atty Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant withint
30 days the sum of P 70,000.00 plus legal interest of 6% per annum.