REVIEWER IN PALE
SOLIMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN (theft of gasoline from Malacanang)
- Soliman was accused of qualified theft for having allegedly conspired with his co-workers in
the Malacañang garage to steal 1,000 liters of premium gasoline.
- In finding the petitioner guilty, the Sandiganbayan relied heavily on the supposed
confession of Cube which was inadmissible as it was not formally and specifically offered in
evidence by the prosecution. As for the petitioner's own supposed confession, it was
invalidated since he was mishandled by his investigators who were drunk during the time,
in violation of the Bill of Rights and the consistent jurisprudence of this Court on the rights
of a suspect undergoing custodial investigation.
- For adhering to the ethical canon that the primary duty of a public prosecutor is not to
convict but to see that justice is done, the Solicitor General deserves the commendation of
the Court. It is truly to his credit that while a conviction could have been another feather in
his cap, he did not seek it at the expense of the petitioner's honor and liberty.
PNB VS CEDO (executive of PNB who thereafter served as counsel in a case against it)
- Cedo served as an executive of PNB wherein he participated in arranging the sale of steel
sheets in favor of Milagros Ong Siy. When a civil action arose out of this transaction
between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 146, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as
one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.
- Atty. Cedo also intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and
Eufemia Almeda with PNB by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action
ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan
account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates"
of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners.
- Having been an executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as
counsel for the opposite side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction
which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests, to wit: "It
is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a
lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend
for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose."
BAENS vs SEMPIO (failed to file Annulment case even after receiving compensation)
- Baens engaged the services of Atty. Sempio to represent him and file a case for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. However, despite receiving the sum of P250,000.00 to
cover for the expenses in the said case, he failed to file the corresponding petition.
Moreover, Atty. Sempio belatedly filed an Answer and was able to file it only on March 13,
2009 which was after the 15-day period stated in the Summons. He also failed to make an
objection on the petition on the ground of improper venue as neither the complainant nor
his wife were and are residents of Dasmariñas, Cavite; and never bothered to check the
status of the case.
- The Supreme Court held that Atty. Baens violated Canon 15, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
- Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
- Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
- The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of
their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. For his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of
its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Lawyering is not a business;
it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.
- The acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and royalty to
his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of
justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
- The respondent's reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process
and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients' interests. A lawyer's duty of
competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or
giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any
court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the
reduced pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging
their termination even without prodding from the client or the court.
JUSTO vs GALING (represented both parties to the case)
- Complainant Justo alleged that she engaged the services of respondent Atty. Galing in
connection with dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa (Ms.
Koa). After she paid his professional fees, the respondent drafted and sent a letter to Ms.
Koa demanding payment of the checks. Thereafter, complainant filed a criminal complaint
against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
- However, she then received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by Atty. Galing for
and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in the criminal cases, and the latter's daughter
Karen Torralba and likewise appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of
Manila.
- Atty. Galing argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant
because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Moreover, he
argued that he drafted the demand letter only as a personal favor to complainant who is a
close friend.
- The Supreme Court held that Atty. Galing violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Under the Rule, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts." By doing so, without showing any proof that he had obtained the written consent of
the conflicting parties, respondent should be sanctioned.
- A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship between
complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the
demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship.
- Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability.
Absence of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the
prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from
the moment the attorney-client relationship is established and extends beyond the duration
of the professional relationship. We held in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta that it is not necessary
that any retainer be paid, promised or charged; neither is it material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward handle the case for which his service had been sought.
- Three tests of conflict of interest (Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat)
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing parties.
1. The test is 'whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
PEREZ vs DELA TORRE (counsel assisted in drafting extrajudicial confession of
accused while representing the murder victim)
- Atty. Dela Torre made representations to accused Ilo and Avila that they could secure
their freedom if they sign the extrajudicial confessions he prepared. However,
unknown to the two accused, Atty. Dela Torre was representing the heirs of the
murder victim. On the strength of said extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed
against Ilo and Avila including complainant Perez who was implicated in the
extrajudicial confessions as the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they
were being charged.
- To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not offer his legal services
to accused Avila and Ilo but it was the two accused who sought his assistance in
executing their extrajudicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their request to
act as counsel after apprising them of their constitutional rights and after being
convinced that the accused were under no compulsion to give their confession
- The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Dela Torre violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.”
- The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of
public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client's case, including the weak and strong
points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the
client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-
dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
- As found by the IBP, at the time respondent was representing Avila and Ilo, two of the
accused in the murder of the victim Resurreccion Barrios, he was representing the
family of the murder victim. Clearly, his representation of opposing clients in the
murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to his clients.
BERGONIA vs ATTY. MERRERA (counsel failed to file appellant’s brief despite being
twice granted a motion for extension)
- Atty. Merrera served as Bergonia’s counsel in a case for the quieting of title appealed
to the Court of Appeals. When required to file appellant's brief, Atty. Merrera motioned
and was granted two extensions of time to comply with the Order. However, he failed
to abide by the given deadline. Hence, as Bergonia’s appeal was dismissed, Bergonia
filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Merrera. In his defense, Atty.
Merrera argued that he found complainant's case futile.
- The Supreme Court held that Atty. Merrera violated Canons 12 and 18 of the Canons
of Professional Responsibility.
- Rule 12.03, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, requires all the
members of the bar to observe the following: "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so." Canon 18.03
of the Code requires that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable."
- Expressly stated is the requirement to show good and sufficient cause for requests of
extension of time to file appellate briefs. Section 12 of Rule 44 of the Rules of
Court provides that an extension of time for the filing of a brief shall not be allowed,
except when there is good and sufficient cause, and only when the motion is filed
before the expiration of the extension sought.
- A lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and with a genuine
intent to file the required pleading within the extended period. In granting the request,
the court acts on the presumption that the applicant has a justifiable reason for failing
to comply with the period allowed. Without this implied trust, the motion for extension
will be deemed to be a mere ruse to delay or thwart the appealed decision. The
motion will thus be regarded as a means of preventing the judgment from attaining
finality and execution and of enabling the movant to trifle with procedure and mock
the administration of justice.
- In this case, respondent twice moved for an extension of time to file the required
appellant's brief. In his first Motion, he alleged that he had a hectic daily schedule of
hearings and other pressures from work. In his next Motion, he claimed he had acute
arthritis and asthmatic attacks. The granting of his two Motions implied that he had
been given ample time either to finish researching his case or to withdraw his appeal.
Yet, he still failed to file the required brief.
- The Court likewise finds Atty. Merrera’s argument that the case was devoid of merit
untenable. Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves with the causes of their clients
before advising the latter on the soundness of litigating. If they find that the intended
suit is devoid of merit or that the pending action is defenseless, they should promptly
inform and dissuade their clients accordingly. If indeed it was true that Atty. Merrera
found her case to be futile, he should have just withdrawn the appeal, instead of filing
several Motions for extension to file the appellant's brief.
MERCADO vs SECURITY BANK CORPORATION (made false assurances that they
would win since he was a close friend of the ponente)
- Aggrieved due to the denial of their petition for review, petitioner Mercado wrote to
Chief Justice Davide a letter containing derogatory and disrespectful remarks. He
relayed that his counsel Atty. Villanueva allegedly said that the ponente informed
him that she had to deny their petition on the same ground because of the
tremendous pressure from the Chief Justice to favor Security Bank Corporation
(SBC). Atty. Villanueva likewise informed Mercado that he was very close and
longtime friends with the ponente.
- The Supreme Court found Mercado and Atty. Villanueva guilty of indirect contempt of
court. Atty. Villanueva likewise violated Rule 15.06 of Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall not state or imply that he
is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body." Further, Rule 15.07
provides that "a lawyer must impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness."
- In the case, Atty. Villanueva took the forbidden course. In informing Mercado that he
was "a very very good, close and long time friend" of the ponente, Atty. Villanueva
impressed upon the former that he can obtain a favorable disposition of his case.
However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercado's expectation crumbled.
This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and disrespectful accusations
against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente.
- As what happened in this case, Atty. Villanueva's statements led Mercado, not only
to suspect but also to believe, that the entire Court, together with Chief Justice Davide
and the ponente, could be pressured or influenced.
- We have repeatedly admonished lawyers from making bold assurances to their
clients. A lawyer who guarantees the successful outcome of a litigation will exert
heavy pressure and employ any means to win the case at all costs. But when the
case is lost, he will blame the courts, placing them under a cloud of suspicion. As
what happened in this case, Atty. Villanueva's statements led Mercado, not only to
suspect but also to believe, that the entire Court, together with Chief Justice Davide
and the ponente, could be pressured or influenced,
- Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to courts and
the judicial officers. Atty. Villanueva's conduct, no doubt, degraded the integrity and
dignity of Chief Justice Davide and the ponente and this Court as well.
DE JUAN vs BARIA (counsel failed to file Motion for Reconsideration)
- In her Salaysay with the Office of the Bar Confidant, De Juan charged her counsel,
Atty. Baria with negligence in handling her labor case and threats against her person.
She alleged that due to Atty. Baria’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the
decision had become final and executory.
- In his defense, Atty. Baria claimed that he was a new lawyer then and did not know
how to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Baria violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.”
- The records reveal that indeed the respondent did not file a motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC such that the said decision eventually had become final
and executory. Respondent does not refute this. His excuse that he did not know how
to file a motion for reconsideration is lame and unacceptable. After complainant had
expressed an interest to file a motion for reconsideration, it was incumbent upon
counsel to diligently return to his books and re-familiarize himself with the procedural
rules for a motion for reconsideration. Filing a motion for reconsideration is not a
complicated legal task.
- Without a proper revocation of his authority and withdrawal as counsel, respondent
remains counsel of record and whether or not he has a valid cause to withdraw from
the case, he cannot just do so and leave his client out in the cold. An attorney may
only retire from the case either by a written consent of his client or by permission of
the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it
that the name of the new attorney is recorded in the case. Respondent did not
comply with these obligations.
- No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client,
but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Further,
among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the
case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and
withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in
the circumstances. Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client. This
means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense.
HERNANDEZ vs PADILLA (counsel filed Memorandum of Appeal instead of Apellant’s
brief)
- Hernandez filed a disbarment case against Padilla for the latter’s alleged negligence
in handling her case. According to her, Padilla filed a Memorandum on Appeal
instead of an Appellants' Brief on their behalf. This prompted Duigan to file a Motion
to Dismiss which was granted by the court. She further alleged that because Padilla
never informed them of the adverse decision, they failed to file an appeal. Moreover,
she claimed that she asked respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal,
but "despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response.
- Respondent explained that he was not the lawyer of complainant. He averred that it
was her husband who had personally transacted with him. According to respondent,
the husband "despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal
because according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three
days." Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he
honestly believed that "it is this pleading which was required."
- The Supreme Court found Atty. Padilla guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04,
as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- When the RTC ruled against complainant and her husband, they filed a Notice of
Appeal. Consequently, what should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or
Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the appellant's brief be
filed after the records of the case have been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a
litigator, was expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads: cdrep
CANON 5 — A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,
participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to
achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating information
regarding the law and jurisprudence.
- Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of
their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code,
which reads:
18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request
for information.
- If it were true that all attempts to contact his client proved futile, the least respondent
could have done was to inform the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance
as counsel. He could have thus explained why he was no longer the counsel of
complainant and her husband in the case and informed the court that he could no
longer contact them. His failure to take this measure proves his negligence.
- Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on
Duigan's Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a
lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client's case, viz.:
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
- Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their
negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.
YU vs BONDAL
