Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BLE Case Digests
BLE Case Digests
Facts: The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommended that Atty. Santos
Complainant Roberto C. Bernardino filed a Letter-Complaint against Atty. be suspended for three (3) months. It found that Bernardino failed to prove
Victor Rey Santos before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, praying that his allegation that Atty. Santos
Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to disciplinary action. Bernardino knew that the death certificate was falsified and used it to support Mariano
alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro Turla, was Turla’s Affidavit of Self-
falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty. Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in Adjudication. Likewise, Atty. Caringal failed to prove that Atty. Santos
1992, when in fact, she died in 1990. converted funds from Mariano
Turla’s estate. Further, Atty. Santos did not engage in forum shopping. The
He alleged that Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to support the various cases filed involved
Affidavit of Self- Adjudication executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina different parties and prayed for different reliefs. However, the Commission on
Turla, which states: Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir Bar Discipline agreed with
entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did not Bernardino and Atty. Caringal that Atty. Santos represented clients with
leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate. conflicting interests.
Issue:
Another Complaint was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser
Caringal. Similar to Bernardino’s Complaint, Atty. Caringal alleged that Atty. Whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional
Santos represented clients with conflicting interests. He also alleged that in Responsibility?
representing Marilu Turla, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the
claims of Mariano Turla. RULING:
Yes, he violated Canon 15 and Canon 10.
In his Answer, Atty. Santos denied having falsified the death certificate. He Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
explained that the death certificate and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication were CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
given to him by Mariano Turla and that he was not aware that there was a dealings and transactions with his client.
falsified entry in the death certificate. Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all
As regards the issue on conflict of interest, Atty. Santos argued that he did concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
not represent and was not representing conflicting interests since Mariano
Turla was already dead. Further, “he [was] representing Marilu Turla against The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-
those who ha[d] an interest in her father’s estate.” Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of client relationship. Lawyers
Self- adjudication never stated that there was no other legal heir but only must treat all information received from their clients with utmost
“that Mariano Turla was the sole heir of Rufina Turla.” Atty. Santos insisted confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of
that he did not commit forum shopping because the various cases filed had the facts of their case. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
different issues. As to the conversion of funds, Atty. Santos explained that inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is “whether or
the funds used were being held by his client as the special administratrix of not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim,
the estate of Mariano Turla. According to Atty. Santos, payment of attorney’s 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 Adeva Group issued a Board Resolution which authorized the Executive Vice
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance President and Treasurer of thecomplainant at that time, and the Vice
of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will President for Administration and Finance, to apply for a loan with the Rural
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and Bank of Paracale (RBP), Daet Branch, Camarines Norte in favor of Mabini
also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first Colleges, Inc.
client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the Lukban Group sent a letter to RBP to oppose the loan application because
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will the Adeva Group appointed Librado Guerra and Cesar Echano, who
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity were allegedly not registered as stockholders in the Stock and Transfer Book
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing of the complainant, as members of the Board of Trustees. The Lukban Group
in the performance thereof. also alleged that Mabini Colleges, Inc. was having financial difficulties.
Atty. Pajarillo sent a letter to RBP to assure the latter of Mabini College's fina
Applying the test to determine whether conflict of interest exists, respondent
ncial capacity to pay the loan.RBP granted the loan application in the amount
would necessarily refute of P200,000 which was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over the
Mariano Turla’s claim that he is Rufina Turla’s sole heir when he agreed to properties of the complainant. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
represent Marilu Turla. Worse, he knew that Mariano Turla was not the only issued an Order which nullified the appointment of Librado Guerra and Cesar
heir. However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically, “by written Echano by the Adeva Group as members of the Board of Trustees of the
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” complainant. As a result, complainant sent a letter to RBP to inform the latter
Respondent had the duty to inform Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla that there of the SEC Order. RBP sent a letter to the complainant acknowledging
is a conflict of interest and to obtain their written consent. receipt of the SEC Order and informing the latter that the SEC Order was
Mariano Turla died on February 5, 2009, while respondent represented referred to RBP's legal counsel, Atty. Pajarillo. Mabini Colleges alleged that it
Marilu Turla in March 2009. It is was only upon receipt of such letter that it became aware that Atty. Pajarillo
understandable why respondent was unable to obtain Mariano Turla’s is also the legal counsel of RBP. On April 18, 2000, Mabini Colleges and
RBP increased the loan to P400,000. On April 23, 2002, RBP moved to
consent. Still, respondent did not
foreclose the Real Estate Mortgage. Mabini Colleges Inc. filed a complaint for
present evidence showing that he disclosed to Marilu Turla that he previously
Annulment of Mortgage with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against
represented Mariano Turla
RBP. Atty. Pajarillo entered his appearance as counsel for RBP. Mabini
and assisted him in executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. Respondent Colleges filed the present complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pajarillo for
also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional allegedly representing conflicting interests and for failing to exhibit candor,
Responsibility, which states: fairness, and loyalty. Atty. Pajarillo raised three defenses against the
complaint for disbarment. First, that Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr.,
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. and Ma. Pamela Rossana Apuya cannot represent Mabini Colleges in this
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing disbarment case because they were not duly authorized by the Board of
of any in court; nor Directors to file the complaint. Second, that he is not covered by the
shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice. prohibition on conflict of interest which applies only to the legal counsel of
complainant. Atty. Pajarillo argued that he merely served as the corporate
secretary of Mabini Colleges and did not serve as its legal counsel. Third,
that there was no conflict of interest when he represented RBP in the case
Mabini Colleges Inc. vs. Atty. Jose Pajarillo
for annulment of mortgage because all the documents and information
FACTS: Mabini Colleges, Inc., had a Board of Trustees which was divided related to the loan transaction between RBP and the Mabini Colleges were
into two opposing factions. The first faction, called the Adeva Group, the public records. Thus, Atty. Pajarillo claimed that he could not have taken
other faction is called the Lukban Group. It appointed the Atty. Jose D. advantage of his position as the mere corporate secretary of the Mabini
Pajarillo as its corporate secretary. Colleges, Inc. On February 14, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner issued
a Report and Recommendation finding Atty. Pajarillo guilty of representing concerned (particularly the complainant) given after a full disclosure of the
conflicting interests and recommending that he be suspended from the facts representing conflicting interests.
practice of law for at least one year. The Investigating Commissioner noted
that respondent appeared for RBP in the case for annulment of mortgage We also note that the respondent acted for the complainant's
filed by his former client, the complainant herein. The Investigating interest on the loan transaction between RBP and the complainant when he
Commissioner cited cash vouchers from sent a letter to RBP to assure the latter of the financial capacity of the
complainant to pay the loan. But as counsel for RBP in the case for
annulment of mortgage, he clearly acted against the interest of the
complainant, his former client. Finally, we agree with the Investigating
1994 to 2001 showing that respondent was paid by complainant for his Commissioner that a complaint for disbarment is imbued with public
retained legal services. According to the Investigating Commissioner, these interest which allows for a liberal rule on legal standing. Under Section 1,
vouchers debunk respondent's claim that the complainant merely appointed Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, "[proceedings for the disbarment,
him as its corporate secretary. The Investigating Commissioner also held that suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court
the personality of complainant's representatives to file this administrative motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the
case is immaterial since proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline verified complaint of any person." Thus, in the present case, we find that
of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or by Marcel N. Lukban, Alberto I. Garcia Jr., and Ma. Pamela Rossana A. Apuya
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any can institute the complaint for disbarment even without authority from the
person. The Board of Governors of the IBP issued a resolution which Board of Directors of the complainant.
affirmed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and imposed a
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year against WILFREDO ANGLO v. ATTY. JOSE MA. V. VALENCIA, et.al
respondent. It denied the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent. A.C. No. 10567, February 25, 2015
ISSUE:
FACTS: In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he availed the
whether Atty. Pajarillo is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela
entered his appearance as counsel for RBP in the case for annulment of Pandan Rubica Law Office(law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon,
mortgage filed by Mabini Colleges, Inc. against RBP. Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were
RULING: partners, for two (2) consolidated labor cases where he was impleaded as
respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to
Yes, he represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 represent complainant. The labor cases were terminated on June 5, 2008
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer upon the agreement of both parties
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the On September 18, 2009, a criminal case or qualified theft was filed against
facts." This rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose intere complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE
sts oppose those of a former client in anymanner, whether or not they are Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta (Villacorta). Villacorta,
parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. Respondent however, was represented by the law firm, the same law office which
represented conflicting interests when he served as counsel for RBP in the handled complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this
case for annulment of mortgage filed by the complainant, respondent's disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03,
former client, against RBP. The finding of the Investigating Commissioner Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR.
that respondent was compensated by complainant for his retained legal
services is supported by the evidence on record, the cash vouchers from
1994 to 2001. Clearly, complainant was respondent's former client. And ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting
respondent appeared as counsel of RBP in a case filed by his former client
interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of the CPR.
against RBP. This makes respondent guilty of representing conflicting
interests since respondent failed to show any written consent of all
RULING:
Respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily Uy-
Valencia, Joey P. De La Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr.,
Rodney K. Rubica, and Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa are found GUILTY of
representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and are therefore
REPRIMANDED for said violations, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view of his
death.
Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use
without their consent , and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the
amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not
required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct.
By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not
only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched
the fair name of an honorable profession.
“When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it
has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the
Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under
this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.”
Martinez. Hence, complainant informed the Investigating
Commissioner of their letter terminating the services of Atty. Lizardo as
counsel for total loss of trust and confidence and prayed for the latter's
disbarment.
IBP:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:
FACTS:
FACTS
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Held
HEIRS OF SIXTO L. TAN, SR., represented by RECTO A. TAN vs. ATTY. NESTOR
B. BELTRAN
February 1, 2017
FACTS :
After agreeing to pay attorney's fees of ₱200,000, complainants engaged papers needed for the filing of the said cases."13 He did not deny his receipt
the services of respondent counsel for the filing of cases to recover their of ₱7,000 for fees and other sundry expenses, of which ₱l,722 had already
commercial properties valued at approximately ₱30 million. Complainants been paid to the Clerk of Court for docket fees. In any event, Atty. Beltran
filed a criminal action for falsification of public documents and use of argued that ₱200,000 as attorney's fees was inadequate, considering that
falsified documents against Spouses Melanio and Nancy Fernando and Sixto the property under dispute was worth ₱30 million.
Tan, Jr., this case was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor of Albay.
this Court referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the
Respondent was notified of the order of dismissal. He filed an appeal via a Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.IBP found
Petition for Review before the Secretary of the Department of Justice (SOJ). respondent guilty of neglect in handling the criminal case and
It was, however, filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period to perfect an recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three months.
appeal. The SOJ dismissed the belated Petition for Review. Respondent no
longer filed a motion for reconsideration to remedy the ruling.
ISSUES:
Complainants instituted a related civil suit to annul the sale of their
commercial properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City.
After being given ₱7,000 by his clients, respondent tasked his secretary to
pay the docket fees computed at ₱1,722. Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court
erred in the assessment of the docket fees. To correct the error, the RTC Whether respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him when he
required the payment of additional docket fees through an Order which belatedly filed an appeal before the SOJ, resulting in the dismissal of LS. No.
respondent received. However, two weeks earlier, he had moved to 2001-03 7
withdraw as counsel with the conformity of his clients. No separate copy of
the Order was sent to any of the complainants. Whether respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and other ethical standards for failing to inform complainants
of the RTC Order to pay the balance of the docket fees in Civil Case No.
The balance of the docket fees remained unpaid. The RTC dismissed the civil 2001-0329
case, citing the nonpayment of docket fees as one of its bases. Whether respondent unduly received ₱200,000 as attorney's fees
Complainants wrote this Court a letter-complaint asking that disciplinary
actions be meted out to respondent. They likewise contended that he had
unduly received ₱200,000 as attorney's fees, despite his failure to render
effective legal services for them. As for the dismissal of the civil action for
nonpayment of docket fees, respondent disclaimed any fault on his part,
since he had already withdrawn as counsel in that case.1âwphi1Anent his
RULING:
receipt of ₱200,000 as attorney's fees, respondent denied collecting that
amount. He only admitted that he had received ₱30,000 to cover expenses
for "the preparation of the complaints, docket fee, affidavits, and other
The Court set aside the unsubstantiated recommendation of the IBP Board evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has greater weight than that
of Governors. Its resolutions are only recommendatory and always subject of the other. The Investigating Commissioner did not explain the
to this Court’s review. recommendation for the restitution of that sum. Moreover, complainants
do not contest that respondent received this sum for fees and other sundry
expenses. Neither do the records show that they demanded the return of
In the first issue: this amount from respondent. In consideration of these facts, the proper
corrective action is to order the accounting of the full sum of ₱35,278.
The Court ruled that failure of the counsel to appeal within the prescribed
period constitutes negligence and malpractice. The Court elucidated that
per Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable." In the case at bar,
respondent similarly admits that he failed to timely file the Petition for
Review before the SOJ. As a result of his delayed action, his clients lost the
criminal case. this Court sanctions him for belatedly filing an appeal.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Facts:
FACTS
RULING:
HELD:
FACTS:
Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres
with presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to,
and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s
signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and
gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from
such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the
canons of legal and judicial ethics. According to the
complainant, the respondent took advantage of his relationship
with her and her brothers and used his profession to deprive
them of what was lawfully due them even if it involved the
commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. the
respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts
that he did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any
of the co-heirs of his wife of the estate left by his parents-in-law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the act of the respondent is a violation of the
lawyer’s oath.
HELD:
The Supreme Court finds respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres
guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as
well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing
membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered
DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.