[A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003] (CANON 15) RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY.

EDWIN T. QUIOCHO, respondent. Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a property previously owned by her sister. Complainant was able to pay respondent for legal fees. Respondent failed. Complainant demanded that respondent refund to her the legal fees and return the documents which she earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent failed to comply with said demands. Held: SUSPENDED for 1 year; repetition of violation will be dealt severely. PAY the complainant. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty in the profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character. A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his client. In this case, respondent miserably failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him.

[A.C. No. 5804. July 1, 2003] (CANON 15) BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, respondent. An SEC Case was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Complainants contend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainants have contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondent refused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases.

Held: GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. 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. In other jurisdictions, the prevailing rule is that a situation wherein a lawyer represents both the corporation and its assailed directors unavoidably gives rise to a conflict of interest. The interest of the corporate client is paramount and should not be influenced by any interest of the individual corporate officials. The rulings in these cases have persuasive effect upon us. After due deliberation on the wisdom of this doctrine, we are sufficiently convinced that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent members of the same corporations board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. To do so would be tantamount to representing conflicting interests, which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Hornilla vs. Salunat Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Thursday, March 08, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Hornilla filed a complaint against Atty. Salunat with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for unethical practice regarding conflict of interests. Said counsel is a member of the ASSA Law Office and acted as the lawyer for the Philippine Public School Teachers Association.

In a squabble between the PPSTA and some of its board members pending SEC resolution for unlawful spending and undervalued sale of real properties, Atty. Salunat appeared as counsel for said board members.

Respondent says he only appeared in behalf of ASSA since he was a partner. Moreover, he only filed a Manifestation for extreme urgency.

Issue: Whether or not Salunat is guilty of unethical behavior as a member of the IBP.

Held: Yes. Respondent Atty. Ernesto Salunat is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

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.

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

Where corporate directors have committed a breach of trust either by their frauds, ultra vires acts, or negligence, and the corporation is unable or unwilling to institute suit to remedy the wrong, a stockholder may sue on behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong done directly to the corporation and indirectly to the stockholders. This is what is known as a derivative suit, and settled is the doctrine that in a derivative suit, the corporation is the real party in interest while the stockholder filing suit for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should be included as a party in the suit.

In the case at bar, the records show that SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, entitled Philippine Public School Teachers Assn., Inc., et al. v. 1992-1995 Board of Directors of the Philippine Public School Teachers Assn. (PPSTA), et al., was filed by the PPSTA against its own Board of Directors. Respondent admits that the ASSA Law Firm, of which he is the Managing Partner, was the retained counsel of PPSTA. Yet, he appeared as counsel of record for the respondent Board of Directors in the said case. Clearly, respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the parties against whom his other client, the PPSTA, filed suit.

HORNILLA v. SALUNATJuly 1, 2003Ynares-Santiago, J(FACTS LANG) RULE 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except bywritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort filed an administrative complaint withthe IBP on BAR Discipline against Ernest Hornilla for illegal and unethicalpractice and conflict of interest.FACTS: y Atty. Ernesto Salunat o Partner of ASSA Law and Associates - Counsel of the PhilippinePublic School Teachers Association (PPSTA) o Retained Counsel of PPSTA Board members (His brother AurelioSalunat being part of the board) y Complainants filed an intra-corporate case against its members of theBoard before the SEC and Ombudsman for unlawful spending and theundervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA. Here, Atty. Salunat entered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board members. o Complainants contend conflict of interest and that he violate Rule15.06 as he assured the board members that he will win the case. y Atty. Salunat responded by saying: o He appeared as counsel for the PPSTA Board members in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates, and only filed a o manifestation of extreme urgency where another lawyer handled the case.

Complainant instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed thecase against the PPSTA board members. o He denied ensuring the victory of the board members as he onlyassured that the truth will come out. o Atty. Ricafort guilty of gross violation of oath of office for fillingtrumped-up charges against him. y Test of inconsistent interests: o whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer s duty tofight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for theother client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument willbe opposed by him when he argues for the other client

o whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorneyfrom the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyaltyto his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealingin the performance thereof. y Derivative suit = corporation vs. stockholdersISSUE:Can a lawyer engaged by a corporation defend members of the board of the samecorporation in a derivative suit?

CASE NO. 63BENEDICTO HORNILLA and ATTY. FEDERICO D. RICAFORT, complainants, vs. ATTY.ERNESTO S. SALUNAT, respondent . Facts: This is an administrative case filed by Benedicto Hornilla and Federico Ricafort against Atty.Ernesto Salunat for illegal and unethical practice and conflict of interest.Complainants alleged that respondent is a member of the ASSA Law and Associates, which wasthe retained counsel of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Complainants, whoare members of the PPSTA, filed an intracorporate case against its members of the Board of Directors before the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was docketed as SEC Case No. 05-97-5657, anda complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-0695, for unlawful spending and the undervalued sale of real property of the PPSTA. Respondententered his appearance as counsel for the PPSTA Board members in the said cases. Complainantscontend that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest because he was engaged by the PPSTA, of which complainants were members, and was being paid out of its corporate funds where complainantshave contributed. Despite being told by PPSTA members of the said conflict of interest, respondentrefused to withdraw his appearance in the said cases. In his Answer, respondent stressed that he entered his appearance as counsel for thePPSTA Board Members for and in behalf of the ASSA Law and Associates. Respondent claimsthat it was complainant Atty. Ricafort who instigated, orchestrated and indiscriminately filed thesaid cases against members of the PPSTA and its Board. He denied that he ensured the victory of the PPSTA Board in the case he was handling. He merely assured the Board that the truth willcome out and that the case before the Ombudsman will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,considering that respondents therein are not public officials, but private employees. Anent theSEC case, respondent alleged that the same was being handled by the law firm of Atty. Eduardode Mesa, and not ASSA. Issue: Whether or not respondent was guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR) when he represented the assailed directors of the corporation of which he is aretained counsel. Held:

Rule 15.03 of the CPR mandates: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except bywritten consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers dutyto fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if heargues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.

105 ROLLON v NAVALFACTS ROLLON, together with her SON, went to the office of ATTY NARAVAL to seek his assistance in a case filed againsther (Collection of Sum of Money) After going through the documents, ATTY NARAVAL agreed to be ROLLONS lawyer and required her to payP8,000 as filing and partial service fee As per instruction of ATTY NARAVAL, ROLLONS SON returned to his office to follow up however ATTY NARAVALtold the SON that he was not able to act on the case because he was busy After several follow-ups and still no action, ROLLON decided to withdraw the amount paid to ATTY NARAVAL forfailure of the latter to comply with their mutual agreement ATTY NARAVAL said that he could not return the documents because the same were in his house and the P8,000paid by ROLLON because he has no money ROLLON decided to refer the matter to the IBP President of Davao City INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER: suspend for 1 year for neglect of duty and/or violation of Canons 15 and 18 IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION: suspend for 2 years for violation of Canons 15 and 18 and restitution of P8,000 ISSUEW/N ATTY NARAVAL SHOULD BE REPRIMANDEDHELDYES, FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 15.05 AND CANONS 16, 17 & 18RATIO Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish tobecome their client. They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in aposition to carry it out effectively and competently. But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are requiredby the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney client-relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelityto a clients cause. And every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence.Hence, practicing lawyers may accept only as may cases as they can efficiently handle. Otherwise, their clientswould be prejudiced. In the case at bar, records show that after receiving P8,000, ATTY NARAVAL failed to render any legal service toROLLON and despite ROLLONS repeated demands, ATTY NARAVAL failed to return the files of the case that hadbeen entrusted to him and kept the money ROLLOON had likewise entrusted to him Furthermore, after going through her papers, ATTY NARAVAL should have given ROLLON a candid opinion on themerits and status of the case. Apparently, the civil suit against ROLLON had been decided against her and hadlong become final executory. However, ATTY NARAVAL withheld such vital information from ROLLON and evendemanded P8,000 as filing and service fee giving her hope that her case would be acted upon. JUDGMENT Atty. Camilo Naraval is found GUILTY of violating Rule 15.05 and Canons 16, 17 and 18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon hisreceipt of this Decision. Furthermore, he is ORDERED TO RESTITUTE, within thirty (30) days from notice of thisDecision, complainants eight thousand pesos (P8,000), plus interest thereon, at the rate of six percent perannum, from October 18, 2000, until fully paid.

NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD PANTANOSAS vs. ATTY. MIGUEL SABAJACAN ISSUE: Whether or not it is justifiable for Atty. Sabajacan in holding the certificates of title and its refusal to deliver the said titles to the complainant despite a formalletter demand. FACTS: Sometime in October 1994 complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owner s duplicate of titlecovering their lands were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondentwho in torn entrusted the same to respondent but when demanded to deliverthe said titles to the complainant in formal demand letter refused and continuesto refuse without any justification to give their titles and that in spite of repeateddemands, requests and pleas towards respondent, respondent still fail andstubbornly refused without justification to surrender the said titles to the rightfulowners, the complainants.The Court required commenting on the foregoing complaint; the respondentadmitted having met Salud Panatanosas but claims that, to his recollection,Nicanor Gonzales has never been to his office. He further denies complainants allegation that he is arrogant, in contrast to the innocence, simplicity andignorance of said complainants. The Court finds that respondent admittedhaving taken possession of the certificate of titles and that all he did was toinform the Court that his obligation to deliver the certificates to Mr. Samto Uyexcludes the delivery of said

certificates to anyone else. Respondent attachedsome certificates of title to his answer to support his contention thatcomplainants are notorious characters. However, the certifications indicate thatmost of the cases stated therein, especially those involving fraud, have beendismissed. Respondent likewise submitted Xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainantsthat is supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. Unfortunately, anexamination of the same does not show any connection thereof to respondent sclaim. In fact, two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different fromeach other. HELD: As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful remedies providedby law to protect the interests of his client. The records do not show that he orhis client has availed of said remedies. Also, he cannot be unaware of theimposable sanction on a counsel who resorts to unlawful means that wouldcause injustice to the adversaries of his client.The Court accordingly finds that the respondent has not exercises the good faithand diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients.Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon hisclient the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead,he unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedlyto enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations to his client presumablyto impress the latter of his power to do so.Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honestmeans to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely skirtedthis proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.The Court desires and directs that respondent should forthwith return thecertificates of title of complainants. To ensure the same, he should be placedunder suspension until he presents to the Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and receipt thereof duly acknowledged bycomplainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is furtherWARNED that a repetition of the same or similar or any other administrativemisconduct will be punished more severely.

ERLINDA R. TAROG v. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT A.C. No. 8253 (Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1067), 15 March 2011, EN BANC (Per Curiam)The Tarogs engaged the services of Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on accountregarding their bank-foreclosed property located in the Bicol Region. Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay P7,000.00 as filingfee, which they gave to him. He explained the importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter theP60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed property. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to verify the status of the consignation. Atty.Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount (in check) in court, but in his own account.He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about when the amount would bereturned, however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in goodhands.The Tarogs furthered delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for making a memorandum, but he didnot file the memorandum. When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make goodhis promise of returning the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arnulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3,2002 that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P15,000.00 paid for the filing of thememorandum. Yet, they did not receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort.In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in court,insisting that the amount was payment for his legal services under a "package deal. Findings of the IBPCommissioner: Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort be DISBARRED and be ordered to return the amount of P65,000and P15,000 which he got from his client. Commissioner Reyes concluded that Atty. Ricafort violated Canon15, and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by takingadvantage of the vulnerability of his clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing toreturn the amount of P65,000.00 to them.

Page| 21 Legal Ethics Case DigestJudge Philip Aguinaldo3AA, A.Y. 2011-2012 The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Resolution resolving to return the matter to CommissionerReyes for a clarification of whether or not there was evidence to support the claim that the P65,000.00 had been in payment of attorney's fees and other expenses. Commissioner Reyes issued a second Report andRecommendation, in which he declared that Atty. Ricafort did not present any retainer agreement or receiptto prove that the amount of P65,000.00 had been part of his attorney's fees; that Atty. Ricafort had willfully ignored the demand of Arnulfo by not replying to the demand letter; that, instead, Atty. Ricafort hadinsisted that the househelp who had received the demand letter had not given it to him; and that in his(Commissioner Reyes) presence, Atty. Ricafort had also promised to the complainant that he would settlehis liability, but Atty. Ricafort did not make good his promise despite several resettings to allow him to settlehis obligation.The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Reyes and recommended the disbarment of Atty. Ricafort and the order for him to return theamounts of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 to Erlinda. Atty. Ricafort moved for reconsideration, maintaining that a retainer agreement was immaterial because he had affirmed having received the P65,000.00 and having issued a receipt for the amount; that hehad not kept the receipt because "the practice of lawyers in most instances is that receipt is issued withoutduplicate as it behooves upon the client to demand for a receipt and considering that the Tarogs hadproduced a photocopy of the receipt he had issued for the P30,000.00 in

connection with their appeal, itfollowed that a similar receipt for attorney's fees had been made at the time when the case had been about to be filed in the RTC. Acting on Atty. Ricafort's motion for reconsideration , the IBP Board of Governors downgraded thepenalty from disbarment to indefinite suspension. Atty. Ricafort filed a second motion for reconsideration, assailing the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors for violating Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court requiring the decision of the IBP Board of Governors to be in writing and to clearly and distinctly state the facts and reasons on which the decision was based. Hence, the administrative case is now beforethe Court for resolution. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort may be disbarred based on the grounds mentioned HELD: SC affirmed the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were supported by substantialevidence. However, SC imposed the penalty of disbarment instead of the recommended penalty of indefinitesuspension considering that Atty. Ricafort committed a very serious offense that was aggravated by hishaving been previously administratively sanctioned for a similar offense on the occasion of which he was warned against committing a similar offense.Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states thatRule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from theclient. Atty. Ricafort explained that he had no copies of the receipts for the P65,000.00 and P15,000.00issued to the Tarogs because "the practice of lawyers in most instances is that receipt is issued withoutduplicate as it behooves upon the client to demand for a receipt." But such explanation does not persuadethe Court. Ethical and practical considerations made it both natural and imperative for him to issue receipts,even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his own records. He was all too aware that he was accountable for the moneys entrusted to him by the clients, and that his only means of ensuringaccountability was by issuing and keeping receipts. Atty. Ricafort's acts and actuations constituted serious breach of his fiduciary duties as an attorney.Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and property of his clients that cameinto his possession, and he needed to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed inhim.Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of his professional employment, he hadthe obligation to deliver such funds to his clients ( a ) when they became due, or ( b ) upon demand.

Page| 22 Legal Ethics Case DigestJudge Philip Aguinaldo3AA, A.Y. 2011-2012 Furthermore, Rule 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

imposes on an attorney thepositive obligation to keep all funds of his client separate and apart from his own and from those of otherskept by him, to wit:Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his ownand those of others kept by him . Atty. Ricafort's plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients rendered him liable for violation of Canon 16, particularly Rule 16.01, supra , and Canon 17, all of the Code of Professional Responsibility .Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of thetrust and confidence reposed in him.His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethicsthat impaired public confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.

91 JUNIO v GRUPO FACTS: Rosario Junio engaged the services of Atty. Salvador Grupo for the redemption of a land belonging to herparents. She gave P25,000 to be used in the redemption, yet Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property and hascontinuously refused to refund the money given. Junio filed a complaint for disbarment for malpractice and gross misconduct Attu. Grupo contends that the land could really not be redeemed anymore, and that since Junio knewthat the mortgage has already expired, she knew that it was just a last ditch effort to redeem the property. Atty.Grupo then borrowed some of the money for himself to help defray his childrens educational expenses. (personalrequest evidenced by a PN executed in favor of Junio Atty. Grupo contends that their families were really veryclose and intimate with each other Junios sisters were maids of Atty. Grupo) Atty. Grupo claims that there was no atty-client relationship and further contends that he did not ask forany fee, not even charity. He claims that his services were just acts of a friend for a friend. (he claims that he iswilling to pay, though) IBP found that Atty Grupo violated a rule forbidding lawyers from borrowing money from their clientsunless the clients interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice and suspended him indefinitely. what he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all hisdealing and transactions with his client. And that Atty Grupo did Not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented toand ratified to the use of the money, as evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty.Grupos claims that the money previously entrusted to him was later converted into a loanISSUE: WoN Atty. Grupo violated Rule 16?HELD: YESRATIO:

What he violated was the rule that a lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all hisdealing and transactions with his client. ( he did not give security for the loan and he refused to pay theamount)And that Atty Grupo did not violate Rule 16 because Junio consented to and ratified to the use of themoney, as evidenced by the PN. The court is constrained to give credence to Atty. Grupos claims that the moneypreviously entrusted to him was later converted into a loan But in the dispositive portion, sabi he violated so ayun. As to the contention that no atty- client relationship exists: it is not necessary that any retainer shouldhave been paid. All is needed is when a person consults with his atty in his professional capacity to obtainprofessional advice. Atty Grupo is suspended from practice of law for 1 month and to refund the money

Junio v Grupo Facts: Rosario Junio entrusted to Atty. Salvador Grupo, P25,000 to be used in the redemption of a property in Bohol. For no reason at all, Atty. Grupo did not redeem the property so the property was forfeited. Because of this, Junio wanted the money back but Grupo refused to refund. Instead, Grupo requested that he use the money to help defray his childrens educational expenses. It was a personal request to which Grupo executed a PN. He maintains that the family of the Junio and Grupo were very close since Junios sisters served as Grupos household helpers for many years. Grupo also stated that the basis of his rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or an act of a friend for a friend with consideration involved. He concluded that there was no atty-client relationship existing between them. The case was referred to the IBP and found Grupo liable for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Profesisonal Responsibility which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients. The IBP Board of Governors recommended that he be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Grupo filed a motion for reconsideration. Issue: Whether or not there was an atty-client relationship. Held: Yes. If a person, in respect to his business affairs, consults with an attorney in his professional capacity and the attorney voluntarily permits in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established. Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of such long relation of master and servant, Grupo took advantage of his influence by not returning the money. Grupo has committed an act which falls short of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by law to repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as an example.

*SC orders Grupo suspended from the practice of law for a month and to pay Junio within 30 days with interest at the legal rate. * Note: 5 yrs. has already passed since the loan.

Canon 17 Yao vs. AurelioA.C. No. 7023 March 30, 2006Facts: Bun Siong Yao is a majority stockholder of Solar Farms & Livelihood Corporationand Solar Textile Finishing Corporation and since 1987, he retained the services of another stockholder, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, as his personal lawyer and also the brother-in-law of Yaos wife. In 1999, they had a disagreement. Aurelio then filed cases against Yao and hiswife. Yao alleged that the series of suits filed against him and his wife constitute an abuse of the confidential information which Aurelio obtained by virtue of his employment as counsel. Aurelio, on the other hand, claimed that he filed those which he obtained by virtue of hisbeing a stockholder of Solar Textile Finishing Corporation.The investigating commissioner found that Yao discontinued paying dividends to Aurelio which compelled the latter to file multiple criminal and civil cases in the exercise of his rights as a stockholder. He recommended that Aurelio be suspended from practice of law. The IBP approved and adopted the said recommendation. Issue: Whether or not Aurelio violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Held: Yes, Atty. Leonardo Aurelio is ordered suspended from the practice of law for aperiod of six months. He took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at Yaoand in doing so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings withYao and his companies for his own end.It is essential to note that the relationship between an attorney and his client is afiduciary one. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidencereposed on him. An attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made to him in hisprofessional character by a client, unless the latter consents. It is to preserve theconfidences and secrets of a client arise at the inception of their relationship. It does notcease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the party's ceasing to employthe attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation between them. It evensurvives the death of the client.

CARLITO P. CARANDANG, Complainant,vs. ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA, Respondent. This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina. Atty. Obminawas counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he filed. Carandang brought suit for Atty.Obminas failure to inform Carandang of the adverse decision in said case and for failure toappeal the decision. The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an Order directing respondentAtty. Gilbert S. Obmina to submit his Answer. However, what the Commission received was aManifestation by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further alleged that her father is already a permanent resident of the UnitedStates of America since March 2001 and had already retired from the practice of law.

On the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa to produce andpresent before the Court the alleged withdrawal of appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now really a permanent resident of the United States of America.Issue:Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with competence and diligenceas pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics and to inform his client as to thestus of his case pursuant to Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.Ruling: There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in anymanner about the decision. Blame should not be attributed solely to the respondent becauseit was observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure to maintain contactwith Atty. Obmina. The Supreme Court held that " clients should maintain contact with their counsel from time to time and inform themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care which an ordinary prudent man bestows upon his business (Leonardo vs. S.T. Best, Inc.,). Nonetheless, the Court underscored the duty of respondent tonotify his client as to what happened to his case.However, the respondent who has in his possession the complete files and address of thecomplainant, should have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to what happenedto his case. Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client, respondent is dutybound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics. That as aresult of the respondents failure to notify the complainant, the latter lost the case leading tohis eviction. The Court ordered that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law for aperiod of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in the United States of America and accordingly retired from the practice of law, the Commission resolved not toclose its eyes on the negligence that respondent has committed while in the active practice.