FACTS:
An administrative complaint filed by the spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda (spouses Aranda) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, charging their former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda (Atty. Elayda), with gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling their case. The spouses Aranda were the defendants in Civil Case filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 72.The spouses Aranda hired Atty Elayda to be their counsel for their civil case. They filed a complaint against the respondent for his failure to follow elementary norms and civil procedure and evidence. However, to their surprise in July 2006, an adverse judgment was issued against them, thus they lost possession of their car. Apparently, their counsel never appeared in court for them. Atty. Elayda failed to inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer as well.In his defense, Atty. Elayda said that it was the spouses who never went to court; that the spouses neglected to check on their case in court; that one time when their case was scheduled, he even notified the court stenographer to notify him if the spouses are in court so that he could be there for them as he was in another court branch for another case.An investigation was conducted and the result finding Atty. Elayda guilty of gross negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was remiss and negligent in handling the Aranda case. Although it is true that the client and their counsel must equally share the burden of communication, it is the primary duty of the counsel to inform the client of the status of their case in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He cannot simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case. His act is clearly a violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As stated on the Canon, a lwayer shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him and he shall serve his client with competence and diligence.His excuse that he did not appear in court because the spouses failed to appear in court is not tenable. His attendance at the hearing should not be made to depend on the whether the spouses Aranda will come or not.ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano (A.C. 6903, APRIL 2012)
FACTS:
An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Suzette Del Mundo charging respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement2 was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare an additional amount as payment for the filing fee, summons, fiscals, psychiatrist and commissioner.In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00.For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet been filed for her. Suzette called for a conference where she demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparans case, to which she agreed.However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 thereafter, refused to communicate with her.
In the Report and Recommendation dated April 11, 2007, the IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review,he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzettes case as well as to account and return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention to breach his lawyers oath; that this is his first offense; and that his profession is the only means of his and his familys livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.Respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing and should act in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this standard is subject for discipline by the court by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration of the surrounding facts.
They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, has SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely and he is ordered to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days.
An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Suzette Del Mundo charging respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement2 was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare an additional amount as payment for the filing fee, summons, fiscals, psychiatrist and commissioner.In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total amount of PhP78,500.00.For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. She verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that no petition has yet been filed for her. Suzette called for a conference where she demanded the refund of the total amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparans case, to which she agreed.However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 thereafter, refused to communicate with her.
In the Report and Recommendation dated April 11, 2007, the IBP-CBD, through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano had neglected his clients interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review,he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzettes case as well as to account and return the funds she entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention to breach his lawyers oath; that this is his first offense; and that his profession is the only means of his and his familys livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.Respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing and should act in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Falling short of this standard is subject for discipline by the court by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration of the surrounding facts.
They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, has SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely and he is ordered to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days.
Phil. Lawyer's Association v. Agrava (G.R. No.L12926, Feb 16,1959)
FACTS:
Philippine Lawyer's Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as
Director of the Philippines Patent Office.On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore,
respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.The petitioner,Philippine Lawyer's Association contends that one who
has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office, and that consequently, the cat of the respondent
Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office
as a condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office, such as representing applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The
respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but
includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to
include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he
stressed that for the long time his holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc.,
constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or
the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. As stated in 5 Am. Jur,The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.
Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge
and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists,
engineers or technical men, which is not the case.The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice
law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, since much of the business in said office
involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as
well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are
judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.
The petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office.
Philippine Lawyer's Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his capacity as
Director of the Philippines Patent Office.On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. It would appear that heretofore,
respondent Director has been holding similar examinations.The petitioner,Philippine Lawyer's Association contends that one who
has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office, and that consequently, the cat of the respondent
Director requiring members of the Philippine Bar in good standing to take and pass an examination given by the Patent Office
as a condition precedent to their being allowed to practice before said office, such as representing applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The
respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but
includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to
include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he
stressed that for the long time his holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc.,
constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or
the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. As stated in 5 Am. Jur,The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.
Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge
and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists,
engineers or technical men, which is not the case.The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice
law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, since much of the business in said office
involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as
well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are
judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.
The petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office.
ORCINO vs.GASPAR A.C. No. 3773 Sept 24,1997
FACTS:
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file
against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. complainant bound herself to pay respondent
legal fees of P20,000.00 -- P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance to be
paid on or before the conclusion of the case. Complainant was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of respondent before the court and fiscal. This agreement was embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991.Respondent entered into his duties. The case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the bail hearings for the accused although these hearings were postponed on motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the court, over complainant's objections, granted bail to all the accused.Orcino immediately went to respondent’s residence and confronted him with his absence. Gaspar explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. Gaspar then gave her the records. Orcino never returned the records nor did she see Gaspar. On September 18, 1991, respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not bear the consent of complainant. The court issued an order directing respondent to secure complainant's consent to the motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent.Complainant prayed that the Court impose disciplinary sanctions on respondent for abandoning his duties and for failing to return the legal fees she fully paid for his services.
ISSUE:
Whether or not he will be allowed to terminate his services without the client's concurrence.
HELD:
No. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application for withdrawal must be based on a good cause.In the instant case, complainant did not give her written consent to respondent's withdrawal. The court thus ordered respondent to secure this consent. Respondent allegedly informed the court that complainant had become hostile and refused to sign his motion. He, however, did not file an application with the court for it to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw.The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds mentioned. Neither can this be considered analogous to the grounds enumerated. As found by the Commission on Bar Discipline, this case arose from a simple misunderstanding between complainant and respondent. Complainant was upset by respondent's absence at the hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers of her husband. She vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was thus a spontaneous and natural reaction for her to confront respondent with his absence. Her belligerence arose from her overzealousness, nothing more. Complainant's words and actions may have hurt respondent's feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment, complainant did not expressly terminate respondent's services. She made this clear when she refused to sign his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Complainant's words and actions may have hurt respondent's feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment, complainant did not expressly terminate respondent's services. She made this clear when she refused to sign his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel."Respondent expressly bound himself under the contract to bring the criminal case to its termination. He was in fact paid in full for his services. Respondent failed to comply with his undertaking, hence, it is but fair that he return to complainant half of the amount paid him. The peculiar circumstances of the case have rendered it impossible for respondent and complainant to continue their relation under the contract.
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file
against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. complainant bound herself to pay respondent
legal fees of P20,000.00 -- P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract and the balance to be
paid on or before the conclusion of the case. Complainant was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of respondent before the court and fiscal. This agreement was embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991.Respondent entered into his duties. The case was thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the bail hearings for the accused although these hearings were postponed on motion of the accused's counsel. Respondent however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at this hearing that the court, over complainant's objections, granted bail to all the accused.Orcino immediately went to respondent’s residence and confronted him with his absence. Gaspar explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing. Gaspar then gave her the records. Orcino never returned the records nor did she see Gaspar. On September 18, 1991, respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel." The motion did not bear the consent of complainant. The court issued an order directing respondent to secure complainant's consent to the motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent.Complainant prayed that the Court impose disciplinary sanctions on respondent for abandoning his duties and for failing to return the legal fees she fully paid for his services.
ISSUE:
Whether or not he will be allowed to terminate his services without the client's concurrence.
HELD:
No. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. Should the client refuse to give his consent, the lawyer must file an application with the court. The court, on notice to the client and adverse party, shall determine whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application for withdrawal must be based on a good cause.In the instant case, complainant did not give her written consent to respondent's withdrawal. The court thus ordered respondent to secure this consent. Respondent allegedly informed the court that complainant had become hostile and refused to sign his motion. He, however, did not file an application with the court for it to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw.The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds mentioned. Neither can this be considered analogous to the grounds enumerated. As found by the Commission on Bar Discipline, this case arose from a simple misunderstanding between complainant and respondent. Complainant was upset by respondent's absence at the hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers of her husband. She vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was thus a spontaneous and natural reaction for her to confront respondent with his absence. Her belligerence arose from her overzealousness, nothing more. Complainant's words and actions may have hurt respondent's feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment, complainant did not expressly terminate respondent's services. She made this clear when she refused to sign his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Complainant's words and actions may have hurt respondent's feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment, complainant did not expressly terminate respondent's services. She made this clear when she refused to sign his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel."Respondent expressly bound himself under the contract to bring the criminal case to its termination. He was in fact paid in full for his services. Respondent failed to comply with his undertaking, hence, it is but fair that he return to complainant half of the amount paid him. The peculiar circumstances of the case have rendered it impossible for respondent and complainant to continue their relation under the contract.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Castro v. Galing (A.C. No. 6174 November 16, 2011)
FACTS:
In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo 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.Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated that the movants in these cases are mother and daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. 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. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients 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 lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP,respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
In 2003, complainant Lydia Castro-Justo engaged the services of respondent Atty. Rodolfo 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.Respondent advised complainant to wait for the lapse of the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint. complainant filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Complainant then received a copy of Motion for Consolidation that was filed for the respondent on behalf of the opposing party. Complainant submits that by representing conflicting interests, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services of Atty. Manuel A. Ao.respondent stated that the movants in these cases are mother and daughter while complainants are likewise mother and daughter and that these cases arose out from the same transaction. Thus, movants and complainants will be adducing the same sets of evidence and witnesses. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Complainant filed filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty.Galing seeking his disbarment from the practice of law for violation of Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility and conflict of interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 15 Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes,the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that [a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts. Respondent was therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and good taste. 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. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence
of the highest degree.It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients 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 lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.The excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ao who was eventually engaged by complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The take- over of a clients cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-client relationship.Considering that it is respondents first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP,respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Mercado v Vitriolo (A.C. No. 5108. May 26, 2005)
FACTS:
Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The complainant alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public document against her, a former client, based on confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship.It appears that the respondent filed a criminal action against complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor,Pasig City.Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children.More specifically,she allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.According to the respondent, hi action does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client.
HELD:
No,In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest.The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential.Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. Also, The complainant had failed to appear during the hearings of IBP. Without her testimony it is impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. The case was dismissed against the respondent was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Rosa F. Mercado filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Julito D. Vitriolo, seeking his disbarment from the practice of law. The complainant alleged that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public document against her, a former client, based on confidential information gained from their attorney-client relationship.It appears that the respondent filed a criminal action against complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor,Pasig City.Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children.More specifically,she allegedly indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978.According to the respondent, hi action does not violate the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client because the bases of the falsification case are two certificates of live birth which are public documents and in no way connected with the confidence taken during the engagement of respondent as counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client when he filed a criminal case for falsification of public document against his former client.
HELD:
No,In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required by necessity and public interest.The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the communication to be confidential.Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations. complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. Also, The complainant had failed to appear during the hearings of IBP. Without her testimony it is impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. The case was dismissed against the respondent was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)