ERLINDA ABRAGAN vs. ATTY. MAXIMO G.

RODRIGUEZ

Facts:

Sometime in 1986, the petitioners hired the services of

the respondent and the latter, represented the former in the
case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cagayan de
Oro City. The case was won by the complainants.
Subsequently, when the lawyer allegedly surreptitiously
dealt with the subject property with other persons, the
petitioner severed the lawyer – client relationship
On August 1991, complainants filed a case of indirect
contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al. Much to
their surprise, respondent represented the sheriff. Since the
counsel employed by the complainants was a former student
of respondent, said counsel, egged by the suggestions of
respondent withdrew the case without the petitioner’s
consent. That as a result of such withdrawal, subsequent
events occurred to the prejudice of the complainants. Acts
of respondent lawyer plus his continuing and ongoing illegal
and unethical maneuvers have deprived the herein
petitioners of their vested rights.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez should be disbarred.

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Rodriquez should be disbarred. He falls short

of the integrity and good moral character required from all
lawyers. He clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of
the facts." In the case at bar, petitioners were the same
complainants in the indirect contempt case and in the
Complaint for forcible entry in Civil Case No.
10 
11204. Respondent should have evaluated the situation
first before agreeing to be counsel for the defendants in the
indirect contempt proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided
allegiance to their clients, and should at all times weigh their
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter and the
public at large. They must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times.

The Court will not tolerate any departure from the

"straight and narrow" path demanded by the ethics of the
legal profession.

WHEREFORE, Maximo G. Rodriguez is found guilty of

violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months
from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO
SABITSANA, JR.

Facts:

Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously

engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the
preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over
a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband,
Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against
her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of
Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The
complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the
confidential information he obtained from her in filing the
civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the

complainant in the preparation and execution of the Deed of
Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential
information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present
disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino
Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who
lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had
instigated the complaint for this reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board

of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to
be fully supported by the evidence on record and
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above

resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion.

Issue:

Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for

representing conflicting interests.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and

recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP
Board of Governors. The SC rules that the relationship
between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued
with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to
his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information
between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust
confidential information to his/her lawyer based on an
expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and
discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions
with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to
avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining

whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given
case.

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 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

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case,

substantial evidence proved to support Atty. Sabitsana’s
violation of the above rule: first, he filed a case against the
complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he
impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case;
and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the
Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and executed
for the complainant.
 By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to
represent one client against another client in the same
action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed
him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in
a property in which his legal services had been previously
retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves

to ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY
of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in
violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year
from the practice of law.
SPOUSES SERAFIN AQUINO and RUMELIA AQUINO vs.
COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

A decision of the Regional Trial Court had become final

and executory due to the failure of the petitioners to file
their appellants’ brief within the reglementary period. The
Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on
the ground that it was beyond the power of the court to
modify the dismissal since the order dismissing the appeal
had become final and executory and an entry of judgment
was already issued.

  The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred

when it served copies of resolutions upon their former
counsel de parte (Atty. Barican) and not to the counsel of
record (Atty. Mala). Furthermore, the CA erred in not serving
the resolution to the petitioner despite knowledge of the
death of their counsel of record.
 
Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid substitution of
attorneys.
 
Ruling:

No, there was no valid substitution of attorney

 Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that
the proper procedure for the withdrawal of a lawyer as
counsel in a case. It provides: Section 26 – Change of
Attorneys – An attorney may retire at anytime from an
action  or special proceeding, by the written consent of his
client filed in court. He may also retire at anytime from an
action or special proceeding, without consent of his client,
should the court,  on notice to the client and attorney, and
on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire.
In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly
employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in
place of the former one, and the written notice of the change
shall be given to the adverse party x x x.”
  Unless the procedure prescribed in the above
mentioned section is complied with, the attorney of record is
regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of
the judgments, orders and pleadings and who should be held
responsible for the case. In case of substitution of attorneys
the following requisites must be complied with: (1) written
application for substitution; (2) written consent of the client;
and (3) a written consent of the attorney to be substituted.
In case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot
be obtained, there must at least be proof that notice of the
motion for substitution has been served upon him in the
manner prescribed by our rules.
In the present case, petitioners admit that Atty. Barican
represented them in the proceedings before the lower court
but that Atty. Mala substituted Atty. Barican when the case
was elevated to the court of Appeals. No proof was
presented by the petitioners to show compliance with the
above procedural requirements for the withdrawal of Atty.
Barican and the substitution of Atty. Mala in his stead; no
written application for substitution or written consent of the
client was filed in court. The Certification made by Atty.
Barican to the effect that he was the former counsel of
record of the petitioners but that he withdrew as their
counsel is not controlling in the absence of compliance with
the above procedural requirements. It is therefore irrelevant
that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy of the resolution of
the court of Appeals which dismissed their appeal since he
was not the counsel of record and had never entered his
appearance as counsel of the petitioners.
 
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES vs. ATY. THOMAS C.
UY, JR.

Facts:

 In a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice,

Judge Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan City charged Atty. Uy
Jr. with violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The accused manifested that she had already settled in

full the civil aspect in the criminal case handled by
respondent under the sala of judge complainant.  Accused
further alleged that she paid P20,000.00 directly to the
private complainant and the balance of P16,500.00 was
delivered to Atty. Uy, Jr., the lawyer of the private
complainant and conformably produced in open court the
receipt for such payment signed by no less than the
aforesaid lawyer. 

However, private complainant manifested that she did

not receive the amount paid to his lawyer, herein
respondent, thereby constraining the court to direct
respondent to turn over the money to private complainant
which he received in trust for the client. Atty. Uy however
argued that his client did not like to accept the money but
the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, the
herein private complainant, who manifested in open court 
her willingness to accept the money.

The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money

but the latter argued that he kept it in his office.
Consequently, the Court suspended the proceedings to
enable Atty. Uy to get the money from his law office which is
located only at the second floor of the same building where
this court is located.  However, respondent did not show up
anymore.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent guilty of professional

misconduct.

Ruling:

Yes, respondent is guilty of professional misconduct.

The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly

fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith.
It is designed "to remove all such temptation and to prevent
everything of that kind from being done for the protection of
the client." Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Furthermore, Rule 16.01 of the Code also states
that "a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client." The Canons of
Professional Ethics is even more explicit: "The lawyer should
refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
reposed in him by his client.

In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to

promptly report and account for the P16,500 he had
received from Trajano on behalf of his client. Although the
amount had been entrusted to respondent, his client
revealed during the hearing that she had not yet received it.
Worse, she did not even know where it was.

  The records do not clearly show whether Atty Uy had in

fact appropriated the said amount; in fact, his client
acknowledged that she had received it. They do show,
however, that respondent failed to promptly report that
amount to her. This is clearly a violation of his professional
responsibility. It is settled that money collected by a lawyer
in favor of his clients must be immediately turned over to
them and that lawyers are bound to promptly account for
money or property received by them on behalf of their
clients and failure to do so constitutes professional
misconduct.

Verily, the question is not necessarily whether the

rights of the clients have been prejudiced, but whether the
lawyer has adhered to the ethical standards of the bar. In
this case, respondent has not done so.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Thomas C. Uy Jr. is hereby

SUSPENDED for one month. He is warned that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

IMELDA A. NAKPIL vs. ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES

Facts:
 Jose Nakpil and Carlos Valdes were friends since the
1950s. Due to their friendship, respondent (CPA-lawyer)
became the business consultant, lawyer and accountant of
the Nakpils.

In 1965, Jose Nakpil became interested in purchasing a

summer residence in Moran St. , Baguio City. For lack of
funds, he requested respondent to purchase the Moran
property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep
the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could
buy it back. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent obtained
2 loans from a bank, in the amounts of P65, 000 and P75,
000, which he used to purchase and renovate the property.
Title was then issued in respondent’s name.

Nakpils occupied the summer house. When Jose Nakpil

died in 1973, respondent acted the legal counsel and
accountant of Jose’s widow. Respondent’s law form, Carlos J.
Valdes & Assoc. handled the proceeding for the settlement
of Jose’s estate.

Ownership of the Moran property became an issue in

the intestate proceedings. Respondent excluded the Moran
property from the inventory of Jose’s estate. He transferred
his title to the Moran property to his company, Caval Realty
Corporation.

Complainant sought to recover Moran property by filing with

the them CFI Baguio an action for reconveyance with
damages. During the pendencey of the action for
reconveyance, complainant filed this administrative case to
disbar the respondent.
Issue:

a. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.
 b. Whether or not respondent is guilty of representing
conflicting interests.

Ruling:

In violation of the trust agreement, respondent claimed

absolute ownership over the property and refused to sell the
property to complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil.
Respondent initially acknowledged and respected the trust
nature of the Moran property. Respondent exercised bad
faith in transferring the property to his family corporation.
Respondent’s act of excluding Moran property  lack of
fidelity to the cause of his client (Canon 17)
If he truly believed that it was his, he should have
formally presented his claim in the intestate proceedings
instead of transferring it to his own company and concealing
it from complainant. His misuse of his legal expertise to
deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical.
To make things worse, respondent through his
accounting firm, charged two loans against the estate as
liability for the purchase and renovation of the property he
claimed for himself.

An attorney cannot represent adverse interests,

however, representation of conflicting interests may be
allowed where the parties consent to the representation,
after full disclosure of the facts. Disclosure alone is not
enough for the clients must give their informed consent to
such representation. The lawyer must explain to his clients
the nature and extent of conflict and possible adverse effect
must be thoroughly understood by his clients.

In the present case, there is no question that the

interests of the estate and that of its creditors are
adverse to each other.
  Respondent denied that he represented complainant in
the intestate proceedings. He points out that it was one
Atty Percival Cendana, who filed the case in court.
However, that is beside the point. Respondent acted as
counsel and accountant of complainant after the death
of Jose Nakpil.

 When he transferred the Moran property to his

corporation, the intestate proceedings was still pending
in court.

 His defense that complainant knew that his law firm

was legal counsel of the estate and that his accounting
form was the auditor of both the estate and the two
claimants against it was not taken by the Court. There
is nothing in the records to show that respondent or his
law firm explained the legal situation and its
consequences to complainant.

Respondent is a CPA-lawyer actively participating in

both professions. He is the senior partner in his law and
accounting firms. Complainant is not charging respondent
with breach of ethics for being the common accountant of
the estate and the two creditors. He is charged for allowing
his accounting firm to represent two creditors of the estate,
and at the same time allowing his law firm to represent the
estate in the proceedings where these claims were
presented.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court finds respondent ATTY.

CARLOS J. VALDES guilty of misconduct. He is suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective
from receipt of this Decision, with a warning that a similar
infraction shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

 
 

ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES vs. PROSECUTOR

DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

Facts:

Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual was sued for

non-remittance of SSS premiums which complaint was
assigned to Prosecutor Ibañez for preliminary investigation.
In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion gave the
amount of P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her SSS
contribution in arrears. Respondent did not pay the SSS,
hence on Nov. 16, 1990, a complaint was filed against the
respondent for professional misconduct in allegedly
misappropriating the amount. On 23 November 1990, the
respondent paid SSS the amount of P1,804.00 on behalf of
Encarnacion.

Issue:
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and
have violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling:

It is glaringly clear that respondent’s non-remittance for

over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion is gross
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The belated payment does not excuse his
misconduct. Neither would his defense that the acts
complained of were not done by him in his office as a
prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While
Encarnacion may not strictly be considered a client of
respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer’s handling of funds
of a client is applicable.

Respondent’s failure to immediately remit the amount

gives rise to the presumption of misappropriation. That is in
gross violation of general morality as well as professional
ethics, it impairs public confidence in the legal profession
and deserves punishment.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers

that a high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is
expected and required of every member of the Bar.

Want of moral integrity is to be more severely

condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court REPRIMANDS respondent with

a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.