Canon 17 Case Digests

ROSACIA vs.
BULALACAO
248 SCRA 664
FACTS:
On June 01, 1990, by virtue of a Written Agreement, respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao was hired as
retained counsel of a corporation by the name of Tacma Phils., Inc.
After almost 9 months from the date respondent’s retainer agreement with Tacma Phils., Inc. was
terminated, several employees of the corporation consulted the respondent for the purpose of filing an action for
illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for the said employees as against Tacma Phils., Inc. by
filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent breach his oath of office for representing employees of his former client, Tacma
Phils., Inc. after the termination of their attorney-client relationship.
RULING:
We agree with the findings of the IBP that respondent breached his oath of office. Respondent does not now
dispute this. In fact, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he did not commit an act bordering
on grave misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney’s oath.
However, respondent is pleading for the Court’s compassion and leniency to reduce the recommended
suspension to either fine of admonition with the following proffered grounds: that he is relatively new in the
profession when the complained conduct was committed; that he is the sole bread winner of the family; that he has
fully realized his mistake; that he has inhibited himself and withdrawing his appearance as counsel in the labor case
against Tacma Phils., Inc.; and that he pledges not to commit the same mistake and to henceforth strictly adhere to
the professional standards set forth by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court reiterates that the loyalty an attorney owes to his clients subsists even after the termination of
attorney-client relationship. It behooves respondent not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.
TRIA-SAMONTE vs. OBIAS

A.C. No. 4945 October 08, 2013
FACTS:
Sometime in 1997, the spouses Nestor and Pura Tria hired Atty. Fanny Obias in a package arrangement for
a parcel of land they had bought for P2.8 million: to get the full consideration and deliver it to the sellers, to get the
title and secure the execution of the deed of sale, to pay all the taxes and other expenses, to transfer the title to the
name of the buyers, and to work for the conversion of the land from agricultural to residential.
Fanny got the money and the necessary documents. However, after some time, and despite the depeated
follow-ups, Fanny failed to comply with her undertakings. Meantime, Nestor died and his daughter Jennifer, the
complainant, took over. She discovered that Fanny had notarized a deed of sale with a consideration of
P200,000.00 over the same land in favor of somebody.
Jennifer filed an administrative complaint against Fanny for grave misconduct and/or gross malpractice with
the Supreme Court. In defense, Fanny argued that Nestor instructed her not to proceed with the sale and instead to
look for another buyer. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1999.
In 2007, the IBP Investigating Commissioner then issued a report which found Fanny violated her oath as a
lawyer because she “participated in the second sale of the subject property despite the lack of any lawful termination
of the prior sale of the same property to the spouses Tria. “He recommended that Fanny Be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of 5 years.”
ISSUE:
Should respondent be held administratively liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code?
RULING:
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP but increased the penalty. Fanny was disbarred from
the practice of law. Citing Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court held that
the “Core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients” cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in them.
They are duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their
clients. The Supreme Court found that Fanny transgressed these rules as her actions were evidently prejudicial to
her clients’ interests.
Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property to her clients, she
willfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person. Accordingly, far removed from
protecting the interest of her clients, Spouses Tria, who had in fact, already fully paid the purchase price of the
subject property, respondent (Fanny) participated and was even instrumental in bringing about the defeat of their
rights over the said property.

Canon 17 Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 17 Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROSACIA vs.

TRIA-SAMONTE vs. OBIAS

You might also like