[DOCUMENT TITLE]
Compilation
of Digest Case 63-74
63. PNB v Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo
A.C. No. 3701 March 28, 1995
Facts of the Case:
1. PNB averred that Atty. Cedo, while still working in the said
bank, participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in favor
of Milagros Ong Siy for Php200,000 and noted the gate passes
by his subordinate Mr. Elefan authorizing the pull-out of the
steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound.
2. When a civil action arose between the bank and Siy, Atty.
Cedo, who had since left the bank, appeared as one of the
counsels of Mrs. Siy.
3. In an administrative case filed by the bank against Mr.
Elefan, Atty. Cedo also appeared as counsel for Elefan only to
be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.
4. While he was still the Asst. Vice President of PNB’s asset
management group, he intervened in the handling of the loan
account of spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with PNB by
writing demand letters to the couple, however when a civil
action ensued, the spouses were represented by the law firm
“Cedo, Maynigo & Associates” of which Cedo was one of the
Senior Partners.
5. Atty. Cedo admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs.
Siy, but only with respect to the execution of the pending
appeal of the RTC decision.
6. With respect to the Almeda spouses, he alleged that he
never appeared as counsel and contended that while the law
firm is designated as counsel of record, the case is actually
handled by Atty. Ferrer and he did not enter into a general
partnership with Ferrer.
7. PNB charged Cedo with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of
the CPR which says “A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while
in said service.”
Findings of the IBP:
1. It was discovered that respondent was previously fined by
the Court in the amount of Php1,000 in connection for forum
shopping in connection with Mrs Siy’s case.
2. In one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses’ case, Cedo
attended with his partner Ferrer, and although he did not
enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty.
Ferrer what to say and argue before the court.
3. During the hearing of the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction in the same case, he impliedly admitted
being the partner of Ferrer, when it was made of record that
they were working in the same office.
4. IBP also noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm
to be true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Rule 15.02- Duty to preserve privileged
communication) since the client’s secrets and confidential
records and information are exposed to the other lawyers
and staff members.
Legal Ethics
5. IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of Cedo to devise
ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of the
bank since he was in the best position to see the legal
weaknesses of his former employer.
6. IBP recommended for the suspension of Cedo for 3 years.
Issue: Whether or not Atty Cedo was guilty of violating Canon
6 of the CPR
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
 In addition to the findings of the IBP, the Court finds
this occasion appropriate to emphasize the
paramount importance of avoiding the
representation of conflicting interests.
 Having been an executive of PNB, Cedo now seeks to
litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a case
against his former employer involving a transaction
which he formerly handled while still an employee
of PNB, in violation of Canon 6 of the CPR on adverse
influence and conflicting interests.
 The court resolves to SUSPEND Atty. Cedo from the
practice of law for THREE YEARS.
64. QUIAMBAO v. BAMBA
Adm. Case No. 6708, August 25, 2005
PETITION FILED
 Administrative case for disbarment
FACTS
Complainant (Felicitas Quiambao) charges respondent (Atty.
Nestor Bamba) with violation of the CPR for representing
conflicting interests when the latter led a case against her
while he was at that time representing her in another case, and
for committing other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing.
Petitioner’s Argument (Felicitas Quiambao– WON)
The complainant was the president and managing director of
Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned
corporation engaged in providing security and investigation
services.
She avers that she procured the legal services of the
respondent not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also
for her personal case.
Particularly, the respondent acted as her counsel of record in
an ejectment case against Spouses Santiago and Florita
Torroba led by her before the MeTC. She paid attorney's fees
for respondent's legal services in that case.
About six months after she resigned as AIB president, the
respondent led on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin and
damages against her before the MeTC for the purpose of
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service
vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as counsel of record
in the ejectment case, which was then still pending.
Complainant also charges the respondent with acts of
disloyalty and double-dealing when respondent proposed to
her that she organizer her own security agency and that he
would assist her in its organization, causing her to resign as
president of AIB. The security was later registered under her
name with the respondent as “silent partner” represented by
his associate, Atty. Gerardo Hernandez where the latter was
paid attorney’s fees for his legal services.
She also alleged that respondent planned to steal or pirate
some of the more important clients of AIB. He also convinced
complainant’s brother (Leodegario) to organizer another
security agency (SESSI) where he served as incorporator,
director and president while serving as legal counsel for AIB
and a silent partner of her security agency where they illegally
diverted the funds of AIB to fund the incorporation and
planned to eventually close down the operations of AIB and
transfer the business to their agency.
Respondent’s Argument (Atty. Nestor Bamba – LOST)
Respondent admits that he represented the complainant in
the aforementioned ejectment case and later represented AIB
in the replevin case against her.
He, however, denies that he was the "personal lawyer" of the
complainant, and avers that he was made to believe that it was
part of his function as counsel for AIB to handle even the
"personal cases" of its officers. Even assuming that the
complainant confided to him privileged information about her
legal interests, the ejectment case and the replevin case are
unrelated cases involving different issues and parties and,
therefore, the privileged information which might have been
gathered from one case would have no use in the other.
At any rate, it was the complainant herself who insisted that
he stay as her counsel despite the perceived differences
among her, her brother, and AIB over the motor vehicle
subject of the replevin case. The complainant even asked him
to assist her in her monetary claims against AIB.
He also denied the charge that he agreed to be a silent partner
of her security agency and that he declined her offer to assume
the role and suggested Atty. Hernandez in his place. He also
denied that he convinced complainant’s brother to organize
another security agency and that the funds were unlawfully
diverted to their agency.
He serves AIB and SESSI in different capacities: as legal counsel
of the former and as president of the latter.
Legal Ethics
Compilation
IBP RULING
 IBP found the respondent guilty of representing
conflicting interests based on the following
undisputed facts:
o Respondent was still complainant’s counsel of record in the
ejectment case when he filed, as legal counsel of AIB, the
replevin case against her.
o Respondent was still the legal counsel of AIB when he
advised the complainant on the incorporation of another
security agency and recommended his former law partner,
Atty. Hernandez, to be its corporate secretary and legal
counsel and also when he conferred with her brother to
organizer another security agency where he became an
incorporator, stockholder and president.
 IBP recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) year.
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RULING
 Adopted and approved the investigating
commissioner’s report and recommendation but
reduced the penalty from one year suspension to a
STERN REPRIMAND.
ISSUE/S
 WON respondent is guilty of misconduct for
representing conflicting interests in contravention of
the basic tenets of the legal profession.
SC RULING
 Respondent is guilty of serious misconduct for
representing conflicting interests.
 In broad terms, lawyers are deemed to represent
conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is
their duty to contend for that which duty to another
client requires them to oppose. If a lawyer's argument
for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer
in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of
the rule.
 In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the
respondent led the replevin case on behalf of AIB he
was still the counsel of record of the complainant in
the pending ejectment case.
 SC did not sustain respondent's theory that since the
ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
cases fraught with different issues, parties, and
subject matters, the prohibition is inapplicable. His
representation of opposing clients in both cases,
though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of
interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-
dealing.
 While the respondent may assert that the
complainant expressly consented to his continued
representation in the ejectment case, the respondent
failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both
his clients and he failed to present any written
consent of the complainant and AIB as required under
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 This prohibition is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected
with the client's case, including the weak and strong
points of the case. The nature of that relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. It behooves lawyers 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.
 Moreover, lawyers are not obliged to act either as an
adviser or advocate for every person who may wish
to become their client. They have the right to decline
such employment, subject, however, to Canon 14
CPR. Although there are instances where lawyers
cannot decline representation, they cannot be made
to labor under conflict of interest between a present
client and a prospective one.
 Despite his apprehension or awareness of a possible
conflict of interest should he join QRMSI, the
respondent later allowed himself to become an
incorporator, stockholder, and president of SESSI,
which is also a security agency. He justified his act by
claiming that while both AIB and SESSI are engaged in
security agency business, he is serving in different
capacities.
 Since the respondent has financial or pecuniary
interest in SESSI, which is engaged in a business
competing with his client's, and, more importantly, he
occupies the highest position in SESSI, one cannot
help entertaining a doubt on his loyalty to his client
AIB. This kind of situation passes the second test of
conflict of interest, which is whether the acceptance
of a new relationship would prevent the full discharge
Legal Ethics
Compilation
of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double- dealing in the performance of that duty.
 The respondent virtually allowed Leodegario and the
latter's wife to violate or circumvent the law by having
an interest in more than one security agency
(Violation of Private Security Agency Law and Canon
1 of CPR).
 Disagreed the recommendation of IBP Board of
Governors for the reduction of penalty for being
without basis.
LAW APPLIED
 Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR: "A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts."
 Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of CPR mandates lawyers to
promote respect for the law and refrain from
counseling or abetting activities aimed at defiance of
the law – For organizing SESSI which is against the
law.
CONCLUSION / PENALTY IMPOSED
 Guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Rule
1.02 of Canon 1.
 Suspended from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR.
65. LEE VS SIMANDO
FACTS:
Atty. Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee
from November 2004 until January 8,2008, with a monthly
retainer fee of Three Thousand Pesos (Php3,000.00).Sometime
during the above-mentioned period, Atty. Simando went to
see Dr. Lee and asked if the latter could help a certain Felicito
M. Mejorado (Mejorado) for his needed funds.
He claimed that Mejorado was then awaiting the release of his
claim for informer's reward from the Bureau of Customs.
Because Dr. Lee did not know Mejorado personally and she
claimed to be not in the business of lending money, the former
initially refused to lend money. But Atty. Simando allegedly
persisted and assured her that Mejorado will pay his obligation
and will issue postdated checks and sign promissory notes. He
allegedly even offered to be the co-maker of Mejorado and
assured her that Mejorado's obligation will be paid when due.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
Due to Atty. Simando's persistence, his daily calls and frequent
visits to convince Dr. Lee, the latter gave in to her lawyer's
demands, and finally agreed to give Mejorado sizeable
amounts of money. Respondent acted as co-maker with
Mejorado in various cash loans. When the said obligation
became due, despite Dr. Lee's repeated demands, Mejorado
failed and refused to comply with his obligation.
Since Atty. Simando was still her lawyer then, Dr. Lee
instructed him to initiate legal action against Mejorado. Atty.
Simando said he would get in touch with Mejorado and ask him
to pay his obligation without having to resort to legal action.
However, even after several months, Mejorado still failed to
pay Dr. Lee, so she again asked Atty. Simando why no payment
has been made yet.
Despite complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored
her and failed to bring legal actions against Mejorado. Thus, in
January 2008, complainant was forced to terminate her
contract with Atty. Simando. Subsequently, complainant's new
lawyer, Atty. Gilbert Morandarte, sent a demand letter dated
June 13, 2008 to Atty. Simando in his capacity as the co-maker
of some of the loans of Mejorado. In his Letter dated June 30,
2008, respondent denied his liability as a co-maker and
claimed that novation had occurred because complainant had
allegedly given additional loans to Mejorado without hisk
nowledge
Dr. Lee then accused Atty. Simando of violating the trust and
confidence which she gave upon him as her lawyer, and even
took advantage of their professional relationship in order to
get a loan for his client. Worse, when the said obligation
became due, respondent was unwilling to help her to favor
Mejorado
Thus, the instant petition for disbarment against Atty.
Simando.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Simando is guilty of representing conflict of
interest? (YES)
RULING: (6-month suspension with warning)
Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining
whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest:
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue
or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to
oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s
argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer
in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge
of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the
Legal Ethics
Compilation
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty.
Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon
in the new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or
previous employment.
TAKE NOTE: In the instant case, we find substantial evidence
to support respondent's violation. Clearly, it is improper for
respondent to appear as counsel for one party (complainant as
creditor) against the adverse party (Mejorado as debtor) who
is also his client, since a lawyer is prohibited from representing
conflicting interests.
He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct,
act as counsel for a person whose interest conflict with that of
his present or former client. Finally, we likewise find
respondent guilty of violating Rule 21.01 of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility.23 In his last-ditch effort to
impeach the credibility of complainant, he
divulgedinformations24 which he acquired in confidence
during the existence of their lawyer-client relationship.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to
ADOPT the findings and recommendation ofthe IBP in
Resolution No. XIX-20 10-733 suspending respondent Atty.
Amador L. Simando for six (6)months from the practice of law,
with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
66. Santos vs. Beltran
Facts:
This is a complaint alleging that:
● Respondent notarized a Deed of Donation executed
by his mother in favor of her nine children, except
complainant, the siblings did not personally appear
before him. Complainant contended that respondent
notarized the Deed of Donation in disregard of Article
904 of the Civil Code.
● Complainant further alleged that respondent
represented conflicting interest when he entered his
appearance as defense counsel in an ejectment case
in which his former client, Erlinda R. Santos Crawford,
was the plaintiff.
Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr. and Benita Roxas
Rodriguez had ten children, namely:
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
● Romeo, Filomeno, Jr., Arturo, Erlinda, Ma. Alicia,
Arcely, Renato, Alberto and Benito and complainant
Rogelio Santos, Sr.
After the death of Filomeno, Benita donated their two
residential lots situated at 11 Javier Baritan, Malabon, Metro
Manila,
● consisting of 489 and 333.4 square meters,
respectively
● covered by Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) Nos. R-
18060 and R-18061
● including the ancestral house situated thereon, in
favor of the nine children, except complainant.
Respondent lawyer notarized the Deed of Donation.
Benita Rodriguez died. Complainant and his brother, Alberto,
were appointed administrators in the intestate proceeding for
the settlement of the spouses' estate
● docketed as SP. Proc. No. 516-AF
● entitled In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of
Spouses Filomeno Santiago Santos, Sr . and Benita
Roxas Rodriguez
● filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
City, Branch 26 thereof.
Petitioner’s Argument: (Santos)
In re. Notarized Deed of Donation (LOST)
● That when respondent notarized the subject Deed of
Donation, his siblings did not personally appear
before him.
● Submitted the affidavit executed by Benito and
Renato attesting to the fact that they signed the Deed
of Donation not in the law office of the respondent
but in their houses at Villa Benita Subdivision.
● The Deed also showed that his siblings secured their
Community Tax Certificates twenty-two days after
the execution of the Deed of Donation
o on September 9, 1994.
● He argued that his siblings were American citizens
who were thus disqualified from owning real
properties in the Philippines.
In re. Respondent’s Appearance as Public Prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 73560 (LOST)
Legal Ethics
Compilation
● Respondent appeared as private prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 73560 for falsification of public
document,
● Which complainant filed against Renato and Benito,
without being engaged by him or authorized by the
court;
In re. Respondent Representing Conflicting Interest (WON)
● Respondent represented conflicting interest when he
entered his appearance as defense counsel in an
ejectment case
o in which his former client, Erlinda R. Santos-
Crawford, was the plaintiff
Respondent’s Argument: (Beltran)
In re. Notarized Deed of Donation (WON)
● He confirmed the due execution of the Deed of
Donation
● Submitted in support thereof the affidavit executed
by Mely Lachica, the secretary of his law office.
o Lachica categorically stated that she caused
all parties to sign the Deed.
o Admitted that she forgot to change the date
of the execution of the Deed from August 18,
1994 to September 9, 1994 when all the
parties had secured their CTCs.
● Respondent argued that complainant's siblings may
still acquire properties in the Philippines
o through hereditary succession even though
they were already American citizens.
In re. Respondent’s Appearance as Public Prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 73560 (WON)
● He explained that complainant filed a complaint for
falsification of public document against him and his
nine siblings, docketed as I.S. No. 04-99-3187
o before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Cabanatuan City,
o relying on the affidavit executed by Benito
and Renato that they signed the Deed of
Donation in their houses at Villa Benita and
not at respondent's office.
● The prosecutor dismissed the complaint. A second
action for falsification of public document was filed by
complainant against Renato and Benito, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 73560.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
● Respondent appeared at one of the hearings of the
said case to defend himself from the accusation of
Benito and Renato.
● Respondent emphasized that he did not ask for any
compensation from complainant for that isolated
appearance.
In re. Respondent Representing Conflicting Interest (LOST)
● Respondent admitted having represented Erlinda R.
Santos-Crawford in Civil Case No. 12105 for
ejectment,
o entitled "Erlinda R . Santos-Crawford v .
Renato R .Santos and Rogelio R. Santos, Sr . ,
" ●
o involving a land covered by TCT No. T-10168
at No. 1 F.S. Avenue, Villa Benita Subdivision,
Cabanatuan City and the improvements
thereon.
● He also acted as defense counsel of Evalyn Valino,
Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil Case No.
14823 for ejectment filed by Rogelio Santos on behalf
of Erlinda R. Santos involving the same property.
● He emphasized that the decision in Civil Case No.
12105 had long been executed, thus the attorney-
client relationship between him and Erlinda Santos-
Crawford was also terminated.
Issue No. 1.:
● WON respondent notarized the subject Deed of
Donation without the Santos siblings personally
appearing before him
Issue No. 2.:
● WON espondent appeared as private prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 73560
Issue No. 3:
● WON espondent represented conflicting interest
when he entered his appearance as defense counsel
in an ejectment case in which his former client,
Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford, was the plaintiff.
IBP Investigation Commissioner:
● found respondent guilty of violating his notarial
commission
● recommended that his commission be suspended for
a period of one year.
IBP Governors:
● Adopted and approved with modification the
recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner
Legal Ethics
Compilation
● Respondent's Commission as Notary Public is
SUSPENDED, with DISQUALIFICATION from being
appointed as Notary Public for two (2) years from
notice of final decision.
Ruling and Application:
Issue No. 1:
● The rule is that a notarized document carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to
its due execution, and documents acknowledged
before a notary public have in their favor the
presumption of regularity.
In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert
the said presumption by clear and convincing
evidence.
● Instead, the quantum of evidence shows that
complainant's siblings appeared before the
respondent as notary public and in fact, signed the
deed.
● The claim of Renato and Benito Santos in their
affidavit that they did not sign the document in the
law office of the respondent but in their houses at
Villa Benita is admissible only against them.
● Likewise, we find the allegation of the complainant
that it was physically impossible for his siblings to sign
the document untenable.
● The certifications issued by the BID that the
complainant's siblings were absent at the time of the
execution of the Deed of Donation is not absolute.
There are many ports of entry which complainant's
siblings may have used in coming into the country.
● The possibility that complainant's siblings executed
and signed the Deed is not remote.
● The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and
the date when complainant's siblings obtained their
CTCs had been substantially explained in the affidavit
executed by the secretary of the law office, Mely
Lachica.
Issue No. 2:
● The allegation that respondent represented
complainant in Criminal Case No. 73569 without
being retained or authorized by the court is also
untenable.
● Respondent adequately explained his isolated
appearance at one of the hearings.
● The transcript of stenographic notes shows that
respondent himself was in doubt as to the nature of
his appearance in the case.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE] Legal Ethics
Compilation
of Digest Case 63-74

● In entering his appearance as private prosecutor, he SC Penalty:

did not intend to represent complainant but only to
defend himself from the: accusation of Benito and
Renato that he notarized the Deed of Donation in
their absence.
● This was patent in the transcript of stenographic
notes wherein he admitted that he himself was in
doubt as to his position.
● We are not persuaded by complainant who tried to
insinuate that it was unethical for the respondent to
represent him.
● found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests
● SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year effective immediately.
● Respondent is further STERNLY WARNED that a
commission of the same or similar act in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
In case Atty Asks

Anent the charge that respondent acquired properties under

Issue No. 3: litigation in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code

● Respondent's act of representing the parties against ● records show that respondent acquired the
whom his other client, Erlinda Santos-Crawford, filed property from Fabern's Inc.,
suit constituted conflict of interest. ● and not from Spouses Filemon and Benita
● There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents Santos.
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties.
Complainant's allegation that respondent as director of Villa
● The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it
Benita Management and Development Corporation
is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but
fraudulently caused the transfer of titles of properties,
it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief,
specifically parcels of lands owned by the family corporation,
if he argues for one client, this argument will be
Fabern's Inc., by executing a management and development
opposed by him when he argues for the other client."
contract, lacks basis.
● This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those Respondent may not be held accountable based on mere
in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be allegation that through, insidious machinations he deprived
used. Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos, now their estate, of the
● Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of properties.
the new retainer will require the attorney to perform
an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any Surmises, suspicion and conjectures are not bases of
matter in which he represents him and also whether culpability.
he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired 67. DAGING V. DAVIS
through their connection.
● Another test of the inconsistency of interests is FACTS:
whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
1. The complainant, Daging entered into a Retainer
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
Agreement with respondent.
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
2. Daging leased a space from Pinlac where her music
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
lounge was located. But because of nonpayment of
performance thereof.
rentals, the latter terminated the contract.
● In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment
3. Together with Balgeo and respondent, Pinlac went to
was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of Erlinda
complainant's music bar, inventoried all the
Santos-Crawford against complainant and Renato
equipment and informed her that Balageo would take
Santos.
over the operation of the bar.
● Respondent, however appeared as counsel for Evalyn
4. Complainant averred that subsequently respondent
Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway in Civil
acted as business partner of Balageo in operating the
Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by complainant as
bar under her business name, and she further alleged
attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford.
that she filed an ejectment case against Pinlac and
● Civil Case No. 14823, although litigated by
Balageo At that time, Davis & Sabling Law Office was
complainant, was actually brought in behalf of and to
still her counsel as their Retainer Agreement
protect the interest of Erlinda Santos- Crawford.
remained subsisting and in force. However,
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
respondent appeared as counsel for Balageo in that
ejectment case and filed,
5. Respondent denied participation in the takeover or
acting as a business partner of Balageo in the
operation of the bar. He asserted that Balageo is the
sole proprietress of the establishment. He insisted
that it was Atty. Sabling, his partner, who initiated the
proposal and was in fact the one who was able to
convince complainant to accept the law office as her
retainer. Respondent maintained that he never
obtained any knowledge or information regarding the
business of complainant who used to consult only
Atty. Sabling. Respondent admitted though having
represented Balageo in the ejectment case, but
denied that he took advantage of the Retainer
Agreement between complainant and Davis and
Sabling Law Office.
6. IBP found respondent guilty of betrayal of his client's
trust and for misuse of information obtained from his
client to the disadvantage of the latter and to the
advantage of another person. He recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of one year.
RULING
Based on the established facts, it is indubitable that
respondent transgressed 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. 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
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the January 15,
2012 Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board
of Governors. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis is found GUILTY of
Legal Ethics
Compilation
violating Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of this
Resolution. He is warned that a commission of the same or
similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a
stiffer penalty.
68. Gonzales vs Cabucana
 Petitioner is praying that Respondent be disbarred for
representing conflicting interests.
 Respondent filed a petition before the IBP alleging
that she was the complainant in a case for sum of
money and damages where she was represented by
the law firm: “Cabucana, Cabucana, De Guzman and
Cabucana Law Office”, with Atty Edmar Cabucana
handling the case, and herein respondent.
 A decision was rendered in the said civil case No. 1-
567 ordering the losing party to pay Petitioner the
amount of P 12, 310 with interest and 6k pesos as
atty’s fees.
 However, Sheriff Gatcheco failed to fully implement
the writ of execution the said judgment.
 Petitioner filed a case against Sheriff Gatcheco.
 Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to the house of
Petitioner and they harassed and asked her to
execute an affidavit of desistance regarding her
complaint before them.
 Petitioner filed against the Gatchecos criminal cases
for trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation,
simple coercion and unjust vexation.
 Notwithstanding the pendency of the civil case no. 1-
567 handled by respondent, respondent represented
the Gatchecos in the cases filed by Petitioner against
the said spouses.
 Respondent argued that he never appeared and
represented the Petitioner in civil case no. 1-567 since
it was his brother who appeared and represented
petitioner.
 Respondent further admitted that he is representing
spouses Gatcheco but claimed that his appearance is
pro bono and that the spouses pleaded with him as
no other counsel was willing to take the case.
 Respondent further averred that when the Gatchecos
asked for his assistance, the spouses said that the
cases filed against them by Gonzales were merely
instigated by a high ranking official who wanted to get
even with them for their refusal to testify in favor of
the said official in another case.
 The high-ranking official being referred to by
respondent is Judge Ruben Plata, and petitioner
added in his complaint that that the accusations of
respondent against the judge is an attack against a
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
brother in the profession which is a violation of the
CPR; and that respondent continues to use the name
of the “De Guzman” in their law firm despite the fact
that said partner had already been appointed as Asst.
Prosecutor of Santiago City.
ISSUE: WON Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 15 for
representing conflicting interests?
IBP-CBD COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECO
 The respondent made a mistake in the acceptance of
the administrative case of the Gatcheco spouses,
however, the Commission believes that there was no
malice and bad faith in the said acceptance and this
can be shown by the move of the petitioner to
unilaterally withdraw the case which she filed against
respondent. However, respondent is reminded to be
more careful in the acceptance of cases as conflict of
interests might arise.
 Penalty: sternly warned and reprimanded.
SUPREME COURT
 Respondent is guilty for violating Canon 15 for
representing conflicting interests.
 Take note: Respondent did not only represent the
Gatcheco spouses in the admin cases filed by
petitioner against them; Respondent likewise acted
as their counsel in the criminal cases filed by
petitioner against the spouses.
 The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of
interests in this case, as the civil case handled by their
law firm where Petitioner is the complainant and the
criminal cases filed by Petitioner against the Gatcheco
spouses are not related, has no merit. The
representation of opposing clients in said cases,
though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interests
or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-
dealing which this Court cannot allow.
 With regard to the argument that it was respondent’s
brother who represented petitioner in the civil case,
as respondent admitted, it was their law firm which
represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the
case, the rule against representing conflicting
interests applies.
 In the same manner, respondent’s claim that he could
not turn down the spouses as no other lawyer is
willing to take their case cannot prosper as it is
settled that while there may be instances where
lawyers cannot decline representation they cannot be
Legal Ethics
Compilation
made to labor under conflict of interest between a
present client and a prospective one.
 Granting also that there really was no other lawyer
who could handle the spouses' case other than him,
still he should have observed the requirements laid
down by the rules by conferring with the prospective
client to ascertain as soon as practicable whether the
matter would involve a conflict with another client
then seek the written consent of all concerned after a
full disclosure of the facts. These respondent failed to
do thus exposing himself to the charge of double-
dealing.
 SC noted the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales.
However, SC said they’re are not bound by such
desistance as the present case involves public
interest. Indeed, the Court's exercise of its power to
take cognizance of administrative cases against
lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil
remedies between parties, but to protect the court
and the public against an attorney guilty of
unworthy practices in his profession.
 SC however considered as mitigating circumstances
that fact that he is representing the Gatcheco spouses
pro bono and that it was his firm, and not respondent
personally which handled the civil case of Petitioner.
 Penalty: 2, 000 pesos fine.
69. Orola vs. Ramos
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT
Complainant:
Josephine, Myrna, Manuel (all Orola), Mary Angelyn Orola-
Belarga (Mary Angelyn), and Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip
(Marjorie) are the children of the late Trinidad Laserna-Orola
(Trinidad), married to Emilio Q. Orola (Emilio) Respondent:
Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos
1. Karen is the daughter of the Maricar and Antionio,
deceased brother of complainants and son of Emilio.
2. In settlement of (mother)Trinidad’s estate, parties were
represented by
a. Atty. Villa for heirs of Trinidad
b. Atty. Azarraga for Maricar, Karen and other heirs
(with Atty. Ramos as collaborating counsel)
c. Atty. Brotarlo for Emilio, who was initially
appointed as administrator
3. Granted | Heirs of Trinidad and Emilio moved for removal
of Emilio as administrator
a. Sought appointment of Manuel
 [DOCUMENT TITLE] Legal Ethics
Compilation
of Digest Case 63-74

4. Atty. Ramos then filed Entry of Appearance as 2. No violation of Sec 20, rule 138
collaborating counsel for Emilio in the same case and and a. Complainants admitted that atty “did not acquire
filed MR of RTC Order confidential information from former client nor
did he use it against the latter”
COMPLAINANTS’ CLAIM:
WON Guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of representing
5. Due to (4) engagement, complainants filed disbarment conflicting interests? YES.
complaint before IBP for violation:
a. Rule 15.03 RULING: CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
i. Due to conflict of interest FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
b. Sec. 20 (e), Rule 138 TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS | Rule 15.03 — A lawyer
i. Breach of trust and confidence reposed upon shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
him by his clients, the Heirs of Antonio consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
6. Complainant further claimed that Maricar consented to
withdrawal of Atty. Ramos. However, it was obtained only Principles applied:
on Oct. 18, 2007 after he entered his appearance for
Emilio in Oct. 10, 2007 1. Lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose
a. Failure to disclose to all affected heirs interest oppose those of the former client in ANY manner
b. Hence, not able to obtain written consent as and whether on SAME OR UNRELATED
required under the Rules 2. Behooves lawyer not only to keep inviolate the client’s
confidence but also to avoid appearance of treachery and
RESPONDENT’S SIDE: double-dealing
3. Hornilla vs. Salunat
1. Never appeared as counsel for heirs of Trinidad or for a. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
Heirs of Antonio inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties
b. Rule covers not only cases in which confidential
2. Only accommodated Maricar’s request to temporarily communications have been confided, but also those in
appear on her behalf as the counsel of record could not which no confidence has been bestowed
attend c. Conflict of interests: if the acceptance of the new
a. This was free of charge retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
3. Permission to withdraw obtained and no further which will injuriously affect his first client in any
communication transpired after matter in which he represents him and also whether
he will be called upon in his new relation to use against
4. No knowledge that Antonio had other heirs and no info his first client any knowledge acquired through their
was disclosed to him by Maricar connection.
d. Conflict of interest: if the acceptance of a new relation
5. Representation for Emilio more on a mediator rather than will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
litigator duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or
6. Since no settlement was forged, he formally withdrew his invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in
appearance the performance thereof.
a. Affidavits of Maricar and Atty. Azarraga on
i. limited appearance 4. Lawyer’s duty to protect client’s interests only on matters
ii. consultation with Maricar prior to that he previously handled for former client and not for
engagement with Emilio matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship
terminated
RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION OF IBP
Commisioner: Reprimanded + warning In this case:
BoG: Suspension 6mons
5. Atty. was not collaborating counsel for Maricar only but
1. Rule 15.03 | Guilty of representing conflicting interest also for all heris of Antonio
with respect to Karen a. Upon representing Emilio for reinstatement as
a. Already of age administrator, he worked against very interest of heirs
b. Heir of Antonio of Antonio, particularly Karen
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
6. Contention: no confidential info was relayed to him =
cannot fully exculpate him
a. Justification: (3)
7. Contention: only friendly appearance in behalf of heirs of
Antonio = cannot be given any credence
a. Justification: even if inconsistency is remote or merely
probably or even if lawyer has acted in good faith,
principles still hold true
8. Contention: engagement with Emilio merely mediator
than litigator = cannot render rule inoperative
a. Rule 15.04 requires attorney to obtain written consent
of all concerned before he may act as mediator,
conciliator, or arbitrator
b. Lawyer who acts as such cannot represent any parties
to it
c. Failed to follow ^ | disciplinary saction
PENALTY: Suspension 3mons + warning
1. Offender 1st timer
2. Merely accommodated Maricar’s request
3. No knowledge that Antonio had other heirs
a. Hence, acted in good faith
4. Did not acquire confidential matters nor used such against
heirs
70. CASTRO-JUSTRO v. ATTY. GALING
A.C. No. 6174
November 16, 2011
PETITION FILED
● Complaint for disbarment filed by Lydia Castro-Justo
against Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing.
FACTS
● Justo alleged that sometime in April 2003, she
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Galing in
connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila
City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms. Koa).
● After she paid his professional fees, Galing drafted
and sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of
the checks.
● Galing advised complainant to wait for the lapse of
the period indicated in the demand letter before filing
her complaint.
● Justro filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for
estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
● On 27 July 2003, Justro received a copy of a Motion
for Consolidation filed by Galing for and on behalf of
Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the
Legal Ethics
Compilation
latter's daughter Karen Torralba (Ms. Torralba).
Further, on 8 August 2003, Galing appeared as
counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila.
Petitioner’s Arguments (“Lydia Castro-Justo” – Won Partially)
● Justro submits that by representing conflicting
interests, respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s Arguments (“Atty. Rodolfo T. Galing” – Lost)
● Atty. Galing denied the allegations against him.
● He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for
complainant but argued that it was made only in
deference to their long-standing friendship and not
by reason of a professional engagement as professed
by complainant.
● He denied receiving any professional fee for the
services he rendered.
● It was allegedly their understanding that complainant
would have to retain the services of another lawyer.
● He alleged that complainant, based on that
agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A.
Año.
● To bolster this claim, respondent pointed out that the
complaint filed by complainant against Ms. Koa for
estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on
the demand letter he drafted but on the demand
letter prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Año.
● Galing contended that he is a close friend of the
opposing parties in the criminal cases. He further
contended that complainant Justo and Ms. Koa are
likewise long time friends, as in fact, they are
"comares" for more than 30 years since complainant
is the godmother of Ms. Torralba.
● He accommodated Ms. Koa and her daughter's
request that he represent them in the cases filed
against them by complainant and complainant's
daughter.
● He maintained that the filing of the Motion for
Consolidation, which is a non-adversarial pleading,
does not evidence the existence of a lawyer-client
relationship between him and Ms. Koa and Ms.
Torralba. Likewise, his appearance in the joint
proceedings should only be construed as an effort on
his part to assume the role of a moderator or arbiter
of the parties.
ISSUE
● W/N the respondent attorney is guilty of violation of
Canon 15.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
IBP CBD RULING & IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS
● They found Galing guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
representing conflicting interests and for his daring
audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his
act.
● It was recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.
SC RULING
● Agreed with the findings of the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
as adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP.
● A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding
the close friendship between complainant and
respondent.
● The relationship was established the moment
complainant sought legal advice from respondent
regarding the dishonored checks.
● By drafting the demand letter respondent further
affirmed such relationship.
● The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the
criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not
eventually engaged by complainant to represent her
in the criminal cases is of no moment.
● As observed by the Investigating Commissioner, by
referring to complainant Justo as "my client" in the
demand letter sent to the defaulting debtor,
respondent admitted the existence of the lawyer-
client relationship.
● Such admission effectively estopped him from
claiming otherwise
LAW APPLIED
● Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts."
CONCLUSION / PENALTY IMPOSED
● Atty Galing was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for 1 year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar offense will warrant a more severe
penalty.
Legal Ethics
Compilation
71. UNITY FISHING v. ATTY. MACALINO
A.C. No. 4566 | Dec. 10, 2004
PETITION FILED
● A complaint for disbarment filed by Unity Fishing
Development Corporation against Atty. Danilo
Macalino for having violated Canon 16 of the CPR.
FACTS
● Frabal Fishing and Ice Plant Corporation (“Frabal”)
was the owner of a parcel of land which was leased to
Wheels Distributors, Inc. (“Wheels”), an authorized
dealer of cars and motor vehicles of various make.
● A dispute arose between Frabal and Wheels
regarding the terms and conditions of the lease
contract.
● The dispute eventually led to a lawsuit. Frabal hired
the services of respondent Atty. Macalino as counsel
for the purpose of representing its interest in the said
lawsuit
● Frabal merged and was absorbed by Unity (petitioner
corporation) on February 12, 1991, with the former
conveying, assigning and transferring all its business
assets and liabilities to the latter, including all judicial
and extra-judicial claims.
● Hence, Unity was substituted in lieu of Frabal in the
former's lawsuit with Wheels; As Unity’s legal
counsel, Atty. Macalino advised to severe all
contractual relationship with Wheels as a step
towards eventually evicting the latter from the
property they were occupying;
● Hence, upon advice of Atty. Macalino, the contract of
lease between Frabal and Wheels was terminated.
● Atty. Macalino likewise advised Unity to return the
guarantee deposit equivalent to two (2) months
rental or the amount of P50, 000 to Wheels. Unity
prepared a check for the amount of P50, 000.
● The check was crossed and made payable to the
Wheels Distributors, Inc. Atty. Macalino volunteered
to bring the check to the office of Wheels himself and
to make them accept it.
● However, it was found that the check was never
actually delivered to Wheels but was deposited to the
personal account of Atty. Macalino in UCPB.
Petitioner’s Arguments
● Unity wrote to Atty. Macalino to explain why the
check in issue never reached Wheels Distributors and
how it was endorsed and encashed despite the fact
that it was a crossed check but he never responded
nor attempted to explain his side to what strongly
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
appears to be a gross misappropriation of the money
for his own personal use despite receipt.
● Hence, Unity was constrained to institute an action
for damages against Respondent Atty. Macalino as
well as UCPB Savings Bank with the RTC of Malabon,
alleging that Atty. Macalino misappropriated the
amount of P50, 000 for his own personal use cannot
be denied.
● An employee of UCPB in the person of Eduardo
Estremadura testified in the aforestated case for
damages that Respondent Atty. Macalino was the one
maintaining the account at UCPB, to which the
crossed check payable to Wheels was deposited.
Respondent’s Arguments
● No comment was ever filed by respondent despite
having been granted 3 succeeding motions for
extensions to file a comment;
o 1st for 30 days, granted;
o 2nd for additional 15 days, granted; and
o 3rd for a “last extension of time to file
comment”, granted.
ISSUE
● WON the respondent was guilty of violating the
Canon 16 of the CPR.
IBP Investigating Commissioner RULING
● Respondent Atty. Macalino was given all the
opportunity to answer and present his defenses to
the complaint.
● Regrettably, the records show that despite the orders
of the SC and the IBP Investigating Commission,
respondent has not taken any step to verify and
inquire as to the status of the complaint against him.
● Almost three years since the submission of the
complainant's memorandum, respondent has not
reacted nor made any move to protect himself and
answer the complaint.
● Due process consists in being given the opportunity
to be heard and the IBP Investigating Commission
believed that in this case respondent has been given
all the opportunity to be heard.
● It recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for two (2) years and be ordered
to account to complainant the amount of P50,000.
Respondent should be warned that a similar offense
would merit a more severe penalty
Legal Ethics
Compilation
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RULING
● IBP BoG approved the report and the
recommendation of the investigating commissioner
with a modification to the penalty.
● The Board recommended that Atty. Macalino be
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year
and he was ordered to account to complainant the
amount of P50,000 with a warning that a similar
offense will merit a more severe penalty.
SC RULING
● The SC is in full accord with the findings, conclusion,
and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
that respondent misappropriated the money
entrusted to him and which he failed to account for
to his client despite demand therefor.
● Atty. Macalino's failure to rebut complainant's
evidence clearly reveals his failure to live up to his
duties as a lawyer in consonance with the lawyer's
oath and the CPR.
● His repeated failure without any valid reason to
comply with the orders of the Court requiring him to
comment on the complaint lends credence to the
allegations thereof and manifests his tacit admission
of the same.
● Atty. Macalino's wanton failure to make an
accounting and to return to his client the amount
entrusted to him upon demand give rise to the
presumption that he misappropriated it, in violation
of the trust and confidence reposed on him.
● His act of holding on to complainant's money without
its acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of
integrity and propriety.
● Atty. Macalino, by depositing the check in his own
account and subsequently deceiving his client into
believing that he delivered the same to Wheels is
undoubtedly guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct and unethical behavior.
● What is more, respondent's repeated failures to
comply with the orders of the Court requiring him to
comment on the complaint indicate a high degree of
irresponsibility on his part.
● The SC could have taken a more drastic action against
respondent, but considering that he has no prior
administrative record, the recommended penalty
serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the
public and the legal profession.
LAW APPLIED
● CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
o Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
o Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds
of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.
o Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees
and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court
CONCLUSION / PENALTY IMPOSED
● Atty. Macalino was declared guilty of violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
for his failure to immediately return and deliver the
funds of his former client upon demand.
● He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective immediately, with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
72. Concepcion vs. Atty. Dela Rosa
[A.C. No. 10681. February 3, 2015.]
COMPLAINANTS:
Spouses Henry and Blesilda Conception
RESPONDENT:
Atty. Elmer A. Dela Rosa
Case: Disbarment Case
TOPIC: CANON 16
Duty to be a trustee of client’s money and property
FACTS:
Atty. De La Rosa served as the retained lawyer and counsel of
Spouses Concepcion for quite a few years. The respondent
handled many of their cases and was consulted on various
legal matters like the plan of opening a pawnshop business.
The plan to open a pawnshop did not materialize. Knowing
this, respondent (Atty. Dela Rosa) asked Henry to borrow the
supposed money for the failed business venture worth P
2,500,000.000 which he promised to return, with interest,
five (5) days thereafter.
The Concepcion spouses agreed and issue three (3) checks in
favor of the respondent. Upon receiving the checks,
respondent signed a piece of paper containing:
Legal Ethics
Compilation
(a) photocopies of the checks;
(b) an acknowledgment that he received the originals of
the checks and
(c) that he agreed to return the P2,500,000.00, plus
monthly interest of five percent (5%), within five (5)
days.
Respondent failed to pay the complainants within the
promised day of payment. After several demands, he made
repeated promised to pay soon. Eventually, Atty. Dela Rosa
denied that he borrowed any money from the complainants.
Respondent claimed that a certain Jean Charles Nault (Nault),
one of his other clients, was the real debtor. He also claimed
that he was in fact engaged to collect the said amount to Nault
in favor of the complainant.
Spouses Concepcion maintained that they extended the loan
to the respondent alone, as evidence by the checks issued in
the latter’s name. They claimed that they don’t also know
Nault. Nault also replied in a letter confirming that he also
doesn’t know the personally the complainants.
IBP Report and Recommendation:
IBP found the respondent guilty of violating:
(a) Rule 16.04 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer
shall not borrow money from his clients unless the
client's interests are fully protected by the nature of
the case or by independent advice;
(b) Canon 7 which states that a lawyer shall uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the IBP;
(c) Canon 16 which provides that a lawyer shall hold
in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return
the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Dela Rosa is liable for violating said Canons of the
CPR
SC RULING: SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS.
The Court concurs with the IBP's findings except as to its
recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount
of P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants.
● On violation of Canon 16 and Canon 7:
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this
"trust and confidence" is prone to abuse. The rule (Rule 16.04)
against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over his client.
On Canon 16: Owing to their trust and confidence in
respondent, complainants relied solely on the former's word
that he will return the money plus interest within five (5) days.
However, respondent abused the same and reneged on his
obligation, giving his previous clients the runaround up to this
day.
On Canon 7: In unduly borrowing money from the
complainants and by blatantly refusing to pay the same,
respondent abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by
his clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. Thus, he should be equally held
administratively liable on this score.
On the modification of penalty:
The Court also deems it appropriate to modify the IBP's
Resolution insofar as it orders respondent to return to
complainants the amount of P2,500,000.00 and the legal
interest. It is settled that in disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is
still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. In
such cases, the Court's only concern is the determination of
respondent's administrative liability; it should not involve his
civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction
separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his
professional engagement. In this case, respondent received
the P2,500,000.00 as a loan from complainants and not in
consideration of his professional services. Hence, the IBP's
recommended return of the aforementioned sum lies beyond
the ambit of this administrative case, and thus cannot be
sustained.
73. DANIEL LEMOINE, complainant vs. ATTY. AMADEO E.
BALON, JR., respondent
FACTS:
PETITION: Verified complaint for ESTAFA and MISCONDUCT
● Complainant Daniel Lemoine, a French national, have a
car insurance with Metropoloyan Insurance Company.
When complainant Lemoine encountered problems in
pursuing his insurance claim, his friend Garcia
recommended to engage in respondent Atty Balon’s legal
services.
Legal Ethics
Compilation
● Respondent Atty Balon sent a letter stating that he will
charge the following for his legal servies:
■ 25% of the actual amount receovered
■ 50,000 advance payment
■ 1,000 for every appearance in court hearing
■ Legal expenses
■ Other miscellaneous but realted expenses
● The letter-proposal does not bear Lemoine’s conformity
as he have not agree with it.
● Thereafter, the insurance company finally offered to
settle the complainant’s claim for 525,000.
● Days before complainant Lemoine left for France he
signed a special power of attorney prepared by Atty Balon
authorizing the latter to bring any action against the
insurance company for the satisfaction of Lemoine’s
claim, as well as negotiate, sign, compromise, encash,
and receive payment.
● The insurance company thereafter settled the claim and
issued the check in the amount of 525,000 which was
received by Atty Balon
● Upon return to the Philippines, he inquired about his
claim. His friend Garcia told him the Atty Balon wrote him
a letter saying that the insurance claim was still pending
and was still subject to negotiation in which the insurance
company offered to settle for 350,000
● Lemoine visited the insurance company for inquiry and
he was informed that his insurance claim had long been
settled through a check which was received by Atty
Balon. Lemoine then went to Atty Balon’s office but he
was not around but he was able to reach him through
phone and demanded the return of the proceeds
● Atty Balon did not deny having in his possession the
proceeds but claim that he had the right to retain such as
payment of attorney’s fees equivalent to 50% of the total
amount collected.
● Lemoine then instituted the present administrative
action
● Complainant’s claim: Respondent was only entitled to
50,000 attorney’s fees. He did not agree to the letter-
proposal of respondentn because it is unreasonable and
excessive. His continued possession of the proceeds and
his misrepresentations regarding the receovery thereof
was fraught with difficulties. There was also irregularity
with the check because it was issued payable to him but
“and/or Amadeo Balon” was therein intercalated after
complainant’s name.
● Respondent’s arguments: His continued retention of the
proceeds is in lawful exercise of his lien for unpaid
attorney’s fees. On the letter to Garcia, respodnent
declared that it was made upon Garcia’s request which
was intended for a certain Joel, which was Garcia’s
business partner.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
ISSUE:
WON Atty Balon is guilty of misconduct for retaining the
proceeds and misrepresentation as to the recovery of the
proceeds
RULING:
IBP: Guilty of misconduct and recommended for disbarment.
Ordered to return the proceeds of 475,000 (525,000 minus
50,000 as attprney’s fees)
Supreme Court:
CANONS VIOLATED
RULE 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
RULE 15.06 — A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.
RULE 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
RULE 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
RULE 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have
a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence in him.
RULE 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client's request for information.
RULE 21.02 — A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his
client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his advantage or that of a third
person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.
Legal Ethics
Compilation
● Specifically with respect to Canon 16, a lawyer must hold
in trust all money and properties of his client that he may
come to possess. This requires rendering of account as
well as delivery of such momey or property. Atty Balon
breached this canon when upon receiving such claim he
did not report it to complainant who had a given address
in Makati or to his co-attorney-in0fact Garcia who had
contact with complainant.
● He even had the audacity to state that the claim was still
pending and recommended to accept the 350,000 offer.
His explanantion that the letter he sent to Garcia was
upon the latter’s request is nauseating. A lawyer, like
respondent, would not and should not commit
prevarication, documented at that, on the mere request
of a friend.
● A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings
with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity, loyalty
and devotion to the client's cause but also degrades
himself and besmirches the fair name of an honorable
profession.
● That respondent had a lien on complainant's funds for his
attorney's fees did not relieve him of his duty to account
for it. In case of disagreement with the attorney’s fees, he
may bring the matter for judicial detrermination and may
not just arbitrarily retain the funds in his possession.
● His claim that he already delivered 233,000 to Garcia in
trust for complainant is without merit. There was no
memorandum to prove such. It is difficult to believe that
a lawyer like respondent would deliver a large amoutn of
money without documenting it
● His intercalation of his name in the check which was
issued payable solely in favor of complainant is clearly a
braxen act of falsification of a commercial document
which respondent resorted to in order to encash the
check.
PENALTY
● GUILTY of malpractice, deceit and grosss misconduct
● DISBARRED
● Ordered the return of the whole amount of 525,000
● Without prejudice to the judicial action he may take to
recover his attorney’s fees
74. DE CHAVEZ-BLANCO v. LUMASAG JR
IBP Ruling (1st time):
In a Report and Recommendation dated 11 December 2001,
IBP Commissioner Milagros San Juan found respondent guilty
of the charges and recommended the penalty of disbarment.
IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty to a five (5)-year
suspension.
 [DOCUMENT TITLE]
of Digest Case 63-74
The Court, however, remanded the case to the IBP in view of
its findings that no formal hearing/investigation was
conducted.
FACTS:
● Through her attorney-in-fact, Atty. Eugenia J. Muñoz,
complainant alleged in her Complaint that she was a
resident of the United States of America together with her
husband, Mario Blanco.
● She also stated that she owned two (2) adjacent parcels of
land in Quezon City, which she authorized respondent,
who was her husband's first cousin, to sell said lots.
● Respondent reported that he had sold only one lot for the
price of P320,000.00 and therefrom he deducted
P38,130.00 for taxes and commissions.
● Allegedly, per complainant's instructions, he remitted the
remaining balance of P281,900.00 to a certain Belen
Johnnes
● In 1995, complainant was informed by respondent that
the other lot remained unsold due to the presence of
squatters on the property.
● In December 1998, Mario Blanco discovered that in truth,
the two (2) lots had been sold on 11 March 1990 to the
spouses Celso and Consolacion Martinez for the price of
P1,120,000.00, and that new titles had been issued to the
transferees.
● Mario Blanco confronted respondent with these facts in a
letter, but the latter disregarded the same. Thus, in May
1999, complainant, through Atty. Muñoz sent a demand
letter to respondent directing him to remit and turn over
to her the entire proceeds of the sale of the properties.
● Soon thereafter, respondent admitted the sale of the
properties and his receipt of its proceeds, but he never
tendered or offered to tender the same to complainant.
● Despite repeated and continued demands, respondent
has since not remitted the amount equivalent to
P838,100.00 (P278,000.00 for the first parcel of land and
P560,000.00 for the second)
● Complainant also averred that the Special Power of
Attorney dated 16 January 1989, which respondent had
used to sell the lots is a forgery and a falsified document,
as the signature therein were not the real signatures of
complainant and her spouse. In addition, they could not
have acknowledged the document before a notary, as
they were not in the Philippines at the time
Respondent’s Defense (Atty. Jaime B Lumasag, Jr.)
● Mario Blanco had requested him to look for a buyer of the
properties and, in the course of
selling them, respondent claimed that he had only
transacted with the former and never
with complainant.
Legal Ethics
Compilation
● Respondent averred that he had been authorized in
November 1989 to sell the property, through a Special
Power of Attorney, for a price of not less than P250,000.00
net for the owner
● Respondent also alleged that the deed of absolute sale if
the two (2) lots had been executed on 19 March 1990 but,
only one lot was initially paid in the amount of P281,
980.00, which he immediately remitted to Mario Blanco.
The payment for the other lot was withheld, pending the
relocation of the squatters who had been occupying the
premises. And when respondent had finally collected the
proceeds of the second lot more than three (3) years after,
he asked Mario Blanco if the former could use the amount
for a real estate venture whose profit, if successful, he
would share with the latter.
● Finally, respondent denied the charge of falsification. He
claimed that complainant and her spouse, Mario Blanco,
had in fact signed the Special Power of Attorney, but it was
only notarized later
ISSUE: WON Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr., is held liable for deceit,
dishonesty and gross misconduct.
IBP RULING (FINAL): Under Atty Dennis A.B. Funa
● It appears from the records that the two lots were sold by
Respondent for P560,000.00, not P1,120,000.00 as
alleged by Complainant. The basis is the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated March 11, 1990 which shows that the two lots
composing 800 sq. meters being sold for P560,000.00.
There appears to be no documentary basis for the claimed
amount of P1,120,000.00 of Complainant. However,
Respondent in his Comment stated that the two lots were
sold by him for P563,960.00. In any case, we shall uphold
and apply the amount stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
● There was clear deception on the part of Respondent
when he wrote the letter dated March 20, 1990
"informing" the Blanco spouses that he had sold only one
of the two parcels of land for P320,000.00
● Instead of representing that two lots had been sold for
P560,000.00. Respondent only represented that he sold
only one lot for P320,000.00 and pocketing the balance of
P240,000.00
● As for the alleged falsi6cation of a Special Power of
Attorney dated January 16, 1989, wherein the signatures
of the Blanco spouses appear in the SPA when they were
not in the Philippines on January 16, 1989 but were
allegedly in the United States, their absence in the country
has not been satisfactorily established since mere xerox
copies of their passports, although noted by a notary
public, cannot duly establish their absence in the country
on that date
 [DOCUMENT TITLE] Legal Ethics
Compilation
of Digest Case 63-74

In view of the fact that respondent was already 72 years old,

he be meted out the penalty of suspension of one (1)-year
suspension, not disbarment. Commissioner recommended
that respondent be ordered to deliver to Complainant the
amount of P240,000.00 plus the legal interest rate of 6% per
annum computed from March 1990.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

● The Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the

IBP, but a reduction of the recommended penalty is called
for, following the dictum that the appropriate penalty for
an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial
discretion based
on the surrounding facts.
● Canon 1 of the of the Professional Responsibility
commands all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity
and integrity of the legal profession.
● Rule 1.01 — a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
● There is no need to stretch one's imagination to arrive at
an inevitable conclusion that respondent committed
dishonesty and abused the confidence reposed in him by
the complainant and her spouse.
● Respondent's contention, though, that he had been
authorized to retain the proceeds of the second is
specious, as complainant and her spouse could not have
given the same, having been left in the dark as regards its
sale.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Jaime

Lumasag, Jr. is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS, effective immediately, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be
dealt with more severely. Further, respondent is ordered to
deliver to complainant the amount of P240,000.00 plus legal
interest rate of 6% per annum computed from March 1990.

NOTICE: This case is under CANON 16 - Duty to be a trustee of

client’s money and property (NOT MENTIONED IN THE CASE)