PALE FINALS REVIEWER

Case 1

HILADO, petitioner, vs. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID,

If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his
professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be
regarded as established .

The mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the opposite
party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received by him from his first
client.

A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure and secure his future
services, and induce him to act for theclient. It is intended to remunerate counsel for being deprived, by
being retained by one party, of the opportunity of rendering services to the other and of receiving pay
from him, and the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the contrary, is
neither made nor received in payment of the services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the
obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the services which he has retained him to perform."

Case 2

JALANDONI, complainant, vs. ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, A.C. 5303

Case 3
Hirnilla ba Ricafort

We are sufficiently convinced that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporation's 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.

Case 4

Seares vs alzate A.C. 9058

Case 5
Quiambao vs bamba
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
PALE FINALS REVIEWER

LAWYERS ARE MANDATED TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND REFRAIN FROM COUNSELING OR
ABETTING ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DEFIANCE OF THE LAW;

Case 6
PORMENTO, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. ELIAS A. PONTEVEDRA, respondent.
A.C. No. 5128

Case 7
A.C. No. 6664. July 16, 2013.]
FERDINAND A. SAMSON, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, responden

Case 8
A.C. No. 6788. August 23, 2007.] (Formerly, CBD 382 )
DIANA RAMOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG, responden

Case 9
G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005.]

Case 10
A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005.]
OMAR P. ALI, complainant, vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG, responden

Case 11
PIMENTEL, JR., complainant, vs. ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P. SALAYON, respondents.

LAWYER IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE MAY NOT BE DISCIPLINED AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR FOR
MISCONDUCT IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL; EXCEPTIONS; CASE AT
BAR.

LAST MEETING CASE

Case 1

[A.C. No. 7861. January 30, 2009.] (CBD Case No. 06-1829)
WILHELMINA C. VIRGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. OLIVER V. AMORIN, respondent.

Case 2
URBAN BANK, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, respondent.
PALE FINALS REVIEWER

The Court ruled that respondent cannot be faulted and accused of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct for invoking the aid of the court in recovering recompense for legal services which he claims
he undertook for the complainant, and which the latter does not deny to have benefited from. What
respondent attorney did was a lawful exercise of a right.

Case 3
A.C. No. 6155. March 14, 2006.]
MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, complainants, vs. ATTY. JAIME
JUANITO P. PORTUGAL,respondent.

Case 4
Briones Case

ATTORNEYS; FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED BRIEF WITHIN REGLEMENTARY PERIOD ENTAILS DISCIPLINARY
ACTION; LAWYERS ARE OBLIGED TO PROTECT ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO A SWIFT AND JUST DISPOSITION OF
HIS CASE.

MUST EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR PROFESSION; EXPECTED TO COMPLY WITH
ALL THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES OF THE COURT; CASE AT BAR.

MUST SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE; SHOULD NEVER NEGLECT LEGAL MATTERS
ENTRUSTED TO THEM.

Case 5

A.C. No. 1666. April 13, 2007.]

LUISITO BALATBAT, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDGARDO ARIAS Y SANCHEZ, respondent.

Case 6

A.C. No. 2614. June 29, 2000.]

MAXIMO DUMADAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA, responden

.; INSISTENT PROTESTATIONS OF INNOCENCE INDICATES ATTORNEY'S UNREPENTANT ATTITUDE; TEN

(10) YEAR SUSPENSION FROM LAW PRACTICE PROPER IN CASE AT BAR. — For all respondent's
protestations to the contrary, the Court is hardly convinced of his innocence for his culpability has been
established and aptly adjudicated upon. . . . Respondent's suspension for more than nine (9) years to
date, for his professional indiscretion, underscored by his insistent protestations of innocence, appears
not to have fully reformed him and opened his eyes to the error of his ways. Considering such an
unrepentant attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge his misconduct . . . respondent's suspension
must deservingly be fixed at ten (10) years.

Case 7
PALE FINALS REVIEWER

A.C. No. 7472. March 30, 2010.]

LIGAYA MANIAGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS, respondent.

OBC. Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Dios can automatically resumed the practice of lawRuling: No, the
OBC made it clear that the lifting of the suspension order was not automatic. As pronounced in various
cases “ The lifting of the suspension order is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the
courts decision, and
an order from the court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable
him to resume the
practice of his profession.”
Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his compliance by
submitting the certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and from the Executive Judge
that he has indeed desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the
Court, after evaluation, and upon favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting
the order of suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of law. The OBC alleged that it was
unfortunate that this procedure was overlooked where Atty. De Dios was able to resume her practice of
law without submitting the required certifications and passing through the OBC for evaluation. The OBC
recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy on the matter of the lifting of the order of
suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law.
The following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from
the practice of law: 1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of
law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty; 2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the
decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a
motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and
executory; 3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement
with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension; 4)
Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive
Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she
has appeared as counsel; 5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension; 6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by
the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment,
as may be warranted.
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
Read Free For 30 Days
Cancel Anytime

Case 8

[A.C. No. 7054. December 4, 2009.]

CONRADO QUE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR., respondent.

Facts:
Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client.
Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of
PALE FINALS REVIEWER

annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a
petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed
the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also
alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the
late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous counsel of the respondent’s clients. The respondent’s
repeated attempts go beyond legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the
interests of his clients. The respondent violated his duty as an attorney “never to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the CPR, and is found liable for professional
misconduct for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02
and 12.04, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR); and Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme
Court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law.

Case 9
G.R. Nos. 173057-74. September 27, 2010.]
BGen. (Ret.) JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, as Justice of the
Sandiganbayan; 4TH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Ramiscal v. Hernandez (Inhibition)

FACTS:
Petitioner, Retired Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., then President of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-
Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), signed several deeds of sale for the acquisition
of parcels of land for the development of housing projects and for other concerns. However, it appears
that the landowners from whom the AFP-RSBS acquired the lots executed unilateral deeds of sale
providing for a lesser consideration apparently to evade the payment of correct taxes. Hence, the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an extensive investigation in 1998 on the alleged anomaly.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo created a Fact-Finding Commission (Feliciano Commission) wherein
respondents wife, Professor Carolina G. Hernandez, was appointed as one of the Commissioners. the
Feliciano Commission submitted its Report recommending, among others, the prosecution of petitioner.
President Arroyo then issued Executive Order No. 255 on December 5, 2003, creating the Office of a
Presidential Adviser under the Office of the President to implement the recommendations of the
Feliciano Commission. Professor Carolina G. Hernandez was appointed as Presidential Adviser in the
newly created office. Shortly thereafter, respondent Justice Hernandez was appointed as Associate
Justice of the Sandiganbayan and assigned to its Fourth Division. On October 11, 2004, eight additional
informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan against petitioner. Two were assigned to the Fourth
Division of the court. Petitioner filed two motions to inhibit Justice Hernandez from taking part in
Criminal Case Nos. 25122-45 and Criminal Case Nos. 28022-23 pending before the Fourth Division.
Petitioner cited that Justice Hernandez’ wife, Professor Hernandez, was a member of the Feliciano
PALE FINALS REVIEWER

Commission and was tasked to implement fully the recommendations of the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee, including his criminal prosecution. Further, the spousal relationship between Justice
Hernandez and Professor Hernandez created in his mind impression of partiality and bias, which
circumstance constitutes a just and valid ground for his inhibition under the second paragraph of Section
1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Should the respondent inhibit himself?

HELD: No. In denying the motions for his inhibition, Justice Hernandez explained that petitioner failed to
impute any act of bias or impartiality on his part. This position is well-taken by the Court. mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
without basis. Extrinsic evidence must further be presented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or
corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.
The relationship mentioned in Rule 137, Section 1 becomes relevant only when such spouse or child of
the judge is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise. Petitioner, however, miserably
failed to show that Professor Carolina G. Hernandez is financially or pecuniarily interested in these cases
before the Sandiganbayan to justify the inhibition of Justice Hernandez under the first paragraph of
Section 1 of Rule 137