Pale Digests
Pale Digests
Hernandez v. Padilla FACTS: Sps. Hernandez sought Atty. Padilla to represent them before CANON 5. - A lawyer shall keep abreast of
the CA after they received and unfavourable decision from the RTC legal developments, participate in continuing
and the Deed of Sale was annulled in favour of Duigan. Duigan legal education programs, support efforts to
motioned to dismiss the CA case, which the CA granted. No MR was achieve high standards in law schools as well
filed, and the decision became final and executors. Hernandez, now, as in the practical training of law students and
alleges that Atty. Padilla’s act of ignoring the CA Resolution is Atty. assist in disseminating information regarding
Padilla acting with “deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice the law and Jurisprudence.
Atty. Padilla Contentions: He’s not the lawyer for Emilia Hernandez, “It must be emphasised that the primary duty
and only met her husband.
of lawyers is to OBEY the laws of the land and
IBP: Suspension
promote respect for the law and legal
processes. They are expected to be in the
ISSUE: WON Atty. Padilla violated Canon 5..
forefront in the observance and maintenance
of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
HELD: YES. IT is a lawyer’s duty, regardless of the particular obligation to be well-oinfropmed fo existing
pleading he’s client may have believed to be necessary, to know the laws and to keep abreast with legal
proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. He is developments, recent enactments and
therefore SUSPENEDED for 6 months and sternly warned. Jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless
they faithfully Company with such duty, they
may not be able to discharge competently
and diligently their obligations as members of
the bar.”
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
Sps. Bengco v. Atty. FACTS: Sps. Bengco alleges that Bernardoused false pretences and CANON 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit
Pablo S. Bernardo falsely misrepresented himself a lawyer for the prospective lot buyer, to be done any act designed primarily to
Mr. Gatchailian, and induced Bengcos to give him 496K in order to solicit legal business
expedite the titling of the lot. 495K was used by Bernanrdo for his
personal benefit, and refused to return the same amount to the 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
Bengcos.
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
IC of IBP: SUspended for 2 years.
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement
IBP BOG: SUspended for 1 year and Order of Restitution
or claim regarding his qualification or legal
services.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
PCGG v. FACTS:
Sandiganbayan
ISSUE: WON Atty. Mendoza violated Rule 6.03 of the CPR for
engaging and representing Lucio Tan in a matter he previously
intervened for in his time as SolGen.
HELD:
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
CANON 7 to 9
Violeta Flores Alitagtag v. FACTS: Atty. Garcia was alleged to have participation in the “A lawyer should not behave in a
ATty. Virgilio R. Garcia falsification of a Deed of Donation and to have allegedly harassed scandalous manner to the discredit of the
the occupants of the property subject of the same deed to vacate legal profession”
the premises by asking MERALCO to cut off their services and
posted security guards to intimidate them.
Application: Atty. Garcia’s acts of harassing
the occupants of the property subject of the
ISSUE: WON Atty. Garcia acted in clear contravention of Canon 7 donation (i.e. asking MERALCO to disconnect
and therefore should be disbarred.
its services and positing security guards to
intimidate them) are contrary to Canon 7. By
HELD: NO. Although he is found guilty of harassing the occupants engaging in acts that undermine recognition
of the property, which do not speck well of his standing as a of and respect for legal processes, hehas
member fo the Bar,t he issue of falsification stands corrected.
clearly committed conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
On the issue of falsification of the subject Deed of Donation, the SC legal profession.
Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and CASE: Malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/ CANNON 8. - “A lawyer shall conduct
Mrs. Natividad Celestine or violation of the lawyer’s oath.
himself with courtesy, fairness and cantor
v. Atty. Jose Concepcion toward his professional colleagues, and
Javierc FACTS: Atty. Javier made statements in his pleadings he filed in a shall avid harassing tactics against
petition for audit of all funds of UE- Facultyy Assoc., before the BLR opposing counsel.”
against Atty. Torres and his clients:
1. Violated the atty’s oath for DIRECTLY pointing at complainant’s Lawyers must keep the dignity of the legal
as intentionally committing the crime of robbery in the UEFA profession, a lawyer’s language must be
office;
dignified.
2. Using clearly abusive, offensive and improper language in their
Reply filed before the DOLE
A Lawyer’s arguments in his pleadings
3. Made demeaning statements to the integrity of the legal should be gracious to both the Court and
profession in the Notarial Practice.
Opposing Counsel.
IBP Investigating Commissioner found Javier guilty for using
inappropriate and offensive remarks in his pleadings, and Clients NOT LAWYERS, are the litigants so
recommended that Javier be reprimanded.
whatever may be the ill-feeling existing
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the same.
between clients should not be allowed to
influence counsel in their conduct toward
ISSUE: WON Atty. Javier’s inclusion of derogatory statements
each other or toward suitors in the case.
Cerina B. Likong v. Atty. FACTS: Likong gave a promissory note and deed of assignment (for
Alexander H. Lim pension checks front he US as a widow of a US pensioner) to Yap
in exchange for a loan of 92k.
HELD
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
CANON 16 - 22
Ricafort FACTS: Businos charges Atty. Ricafort for the crime of estafa (thru
deceit) for misappropriating 32k (30k entrusted to be deposited in Lawyers are bound to promptly account for
Businos’ Husband’s bank, and 2k the amount Ricafort demanded money or property received by them on behalf
from Businos for a bond). The 32k was supposed to be rental fee of their clients and failure to do So constitutes
payment paid by Oas Standard High School to Businos, Ricafort professional misconduct.
allegations.
onsideration of his legal services. Such acts violated the law expressly
prohibiting a lawyer from acquiring his client’s property or interest An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to
involved in any litigation which I he may take part by virtue of his pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the
profession. The purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property or client’s rights is Champertous, against public
interest in litigation is a BREACH of professional ethics and policy.
constitutes malpractice. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS from the
practice
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
IBP-IC: Liable for violation of Rule 16.04 CPR, which forbids lawyers
from borrowing money from thei clients unless the latter’s interests
are “protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice”.
Recommends SUSPENSION form practice for 30 days.
HELD: YES. Atty. Grupo is liable for violation of Canon 16, for
borrowing money from their clients, and further aggravating the same
for refusal to pay the borrowed amount.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
alleged negligence in handling her ejectment case. Padilla had —while trust that Atty. Angeles was not
IGNORED the resolution of the CA which granted the MTD-appeal of Hernandez’s lawyer from the trial to the
Duigan, opposing party; thus, it is now this act that Hernandez alleges appellate court, thesis fact did not excuse him
to be ‘deceitful amount to malpractice of law’, because Hernandez from his duty to diligently study a case he had
failed to file an appeal due to Padilla forgetting to inform them of the agreed to handle.
HELD: YES. There were several remedies that Atty. Angeles could
have availed, but his negligence made him sit and do nothing. He
cannot contend that he could no longer reach the clients to inform
them of the status of their case, He could have explained why he was
no longer the counsel and informed the court to appraise them of the
change. Lastly, his failure to properly file the proper pleading is also
negligent of his duties as a lawyer. SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
partition they had filed which resulted to a loss of their share. Atty.
Libatique contends that he lost track of the number of cases that 18.04
requires his attention.
before the NLRC for Hufana. Pena, as the employer of Hufana, —a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
attended the conciliation conference with Aparicio; in which Pena administration of justice; to that end, his
rejected the claims for separation pay and demanded that Hufana client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his
explain her absences and returns o work. Aparicio, in behalf of conduct ought to and must always be
Hufana, wrote a reply to the ‘RTW-Order’ which involved threats of scrupulously observant of law and ethics.
filing criminal charges and tax evasion cases against Pena. Pena files
a complaint for administrative charges against Aparicio on ground **Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
that the letter deviated form accepted ethical standards before the sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
IBP-CBD. Aparicio files an Answer with Impleader, alleging that Atty. criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action
Jocson was the one who imputed the charades against him.
or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
IBP-CBD: No appearance of both, complaint dismissed for lack of Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
CNFS.
— if the complainant in a disbarment case fails
to attach a CNFS, the pendency of another
ISSUE: WON Atty. Aparicio is guilty of violating Canon 19.
disciplinary action against the same
respondent may still be ascertained with
HELD: YES. Atty. Aparicio did exactly what Canon 19 and Rule 19 ease...xxx... the rule requiring CNFS to
proscribes. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should accompany every initiatory pleading, “should
the latter fail tot pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he not be interpreted with such absolute
would file and claim bigger amounts. The threats are not only literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
unethical for violating C19, but they also amount to blackmail. legitimate objective”.
Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person buy threats of
accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints, xxx
obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from
making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret
calculated to operate to his prejudice.” REPRIMANDED.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
Manager of Rural Bank of Pagadian, Inc., alleges that Atty. Apiag - “a lawyer shall a not neglect a legal matter
violated the terms of their legal services retainership agreement for entrusted to him, and his negligence in
reneging on his obligations on several cases for: not informing him of connection therewith shall render him
the case’s dismissal, not attending pre-trial, failure to file appropriate liable”
pleadings, and for billing an amount that does not conform to the - “A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
terms of the Retianer.
the status of his case and shall respond
IBP: Atty.Apiag was negligent in legal matters and actions entrusted within a reasonable time to the client’s
to him by his client complainant.
request for information”
HELD: YES. Atty. Apiag failed to file position paper and did not inform
his clients of the dismissal of the ejectment cases, Apiag had
knowledge of the dismissal of the ejectment cases, SC finds the
lawyer in bad faith for failing to inform the clients of the status of the
case. SC has repeatedly stressed theta the lawyer-client relationship
is highly fiduciary. There is a need for the client to receive front eh
lawyer periodic and full updates on developments affecting the case.
The lawyer’s failure to file the position paper is per se a violation of
Canon 18, the SC ruled that the dereliction of duty to file the position
paper, compounded by the failure for nearly two years to inform eh
client of the dismissal of the case, shows the lawyer’s negligence. As
well as his failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable
negligence. SUSPENSION for 6 MONTHS.
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
Cortes v. CA CASE: complaint for specific performance filed by FSMDC against CANON 20: guidelines in fixing a reasonable
Sps. Cortes involving the sale of a parcel of land they owned
compensation fro services redndered by a
FACTS:Cortes retained Atty. Moyà, but did not agree on the amount lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit:
amounting to 2.7M for the price of the land. Atty. Moyà filed a motion - must be REASONABLE and must be on the
to fix his atty’s fees to 35% of the amount received. Sps. Cortes basis of Quatum Meruitm, “as much as the
opposed, claiming the same was excessive. The Court interfered and lawyer deserves”
stated that Atty’s Fees would be 100k only. Sps. Cortes terminated - where a lawyer is employed without
their retainer with Atty. Moyà. Atty. Moyà later filed a manifestation to agreement as to the amount to be paid for
resolve his earlier motion on his fees. TC ordered Corteses to pay his services, the courts shall fix the amount
100k. Corteses appealed the order to the CA. CA ordered Corteses to on quantum meriut basis.
pay 100k.
ISSUE: WON 100k award in favour of Atty. Moyà by way of AF for the
handling of the case before his services were legally terminated is
excessive.
Roxas v. De
Zuzuarregui, et.al
(2007)
CASE DIGEST DOCTRINE
Roxas v. De CASE: consolidated petitions for review on certiorari which orignates SC does not allow a ‘Contract for Professional
Zuzuarregui (2006) form an Expropriation proceeding filed by the NHA against the Services’ between the counsel and his client
Zuzuarreguis.
to stand as the law between them as the
FACTS: Zuzuarreguis engaged the services of Attys. Roxas and stipulation for the lawyer’s compensation was
Pastor. the counsels contends that the
UNCONSCIONABLE and UNREASONABLE
Pineda v. Atty. De CASE: Petition for Review on an action for declaration of nullify of A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by
Jesus marriage
filing the necessary petition as an incident of
FACTS: Respondent Counsels sought to bill Pineda for the case they the main action in which his services were
handle for the settlement in the case fo declaration of nullify an rendered or in an independent suit against his
extraordinary amount of 1.12M, and ADDITONAL 50M despite being client. (Avoid multiplicity of suits.
ground that as legal counsel who was privy to all his legal, financial
and political affairs 1956 to 64, after their atty-client relationship Attorney-Client Relation
ended, Rafael continued to file cases and complaint against Federico - a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and
using the information he discovered due to the confidential secrets of his clients EVEN AFTER
relationship.
termination of the ACR.
OSG: GUILTY —> IBP: recommends suspension for 2 years for - Communications between atty-clients are a
immoral conduct.
complicated affair, consisting of entangled
IBP-IC: affirms.
relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-
known facts.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Rafael is guilty of immoral conduct.