THIRD DIVISION

Complainant explained that De Guzman used to be allied with former Speaker

A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 Arnulfo Fuentebella (Speaker Fuentebella) under the Nationalist People's Coalition
(NPC) party, whereas Mayor Velarde was a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong
Pilipino (LDP) party, led by Camarines Sur Governor Luis R. Villafuerte (Gov.
TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE
Villafuerte). The Fuentebellas and the Villafuertes are known to be politically at odds
BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents. with each other. However, De Guzman subsequently changed her political allegiance
and became affiliated with the Villafuertes by transferring to the LDP party. Mayor
RESOLUTION Velarde, on the other hand, became an ally of the Fuentebellas under the
NPC.5chanrobleslaw
PEREZ, J.:
According to complainant, Atty. Bello agreed to represent De Guzman in the election
protest case because she was a political ally of Speaker Fuentebella. Complainant
This is a Motion for Reconsideration  of the Resolution  of the Court dated 22 August
1 2
emphasized that Atty. Bello has always represented the political interests of the
2012 finding respondent Atty. John G. Reyes guilty of "negligence of contumacious
Fuentebellas. There is, therefore, no doubt that Atty. Bello is the lawyer of the
proportions" and suspending him from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
Fuentebellas.6 As a result, with the sudden shifting of the political loyalty of De
year.
Guzman and Mayor Velarde, Atty. Bello suddenly stopped appearing for De Guzman
in the protest case without formally withdrawing as her counsel. 7 Mayor Velarde now
The Facts
had to be defended by Atty. Bello because he is already an ally of the Fuentebellas.
However, Atty. Bello cannot actively defend Mayor Velarde because he appeared for
The present case arose out of a petition for disbarment filed by Atty. Teodoro B. Cruz,
De Guzman before the RTC.8 Thus, complainant concluded, Atty. Bello found the
Jr. (complainant) charging respondent Atty. John G. Reyes (respondent) with
expedient of passing the case to his clandestine partner, respondent Atty. Reyes,
intentional misrepresentation, knowingly handling a case involving conflict of
making the latter guilty of representing conflicting interests,9 in violation of Rule
interest, falsification, knowingly alleging untruths in pleadings and unethical
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
conduct, based on the following incidents:
The Second Incident
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThe First Incident
(Falsification, Knowingly Alleging Untruths in Pleadings and Unethical Conduct)
(Intentional Misrepresentation and Knowingly Handling a Case Involving Conflict
of Interest)
On or before 15 December 2003, former Speaker Fuentebella filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for Congressman of the 3rd District of Camarines Sur. Complainant
Complainant alleged that respondent entered his appearance as counsel for Mayor
also filed a COC for the same position. Subsequently, a certain Ebeta P. Cruz (Ebeta)
Rosito Velarde (Mayor Velarde) of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, in an election protest
and a certain Marita Montefalcon Cruz-Gulles (Marita) likewise filed their respective
case that was on appeal before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The case,
COCs for the aforementioned position. The former is an indigent laundry woman
entitled "Racquel 'BIBI' Reyes de Guzman, Protestant, versus Mayor Rosito Velarde,
from San Jose, Camarines Sur, while the latter was a former casual laborer of the
Protestee," originated from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calabanga, Branch 63,
municipal government of Tigaon, Camarines Sur.10 Clearly, both Ebeta Marita had no
Camarines Sur. According to the petition for disbarment, "an incident occurred" in
real intention of running for the position for which they filed their COC, but were
the course of the trial which forced Mayor Velarde to bring an incident up to the
merely instigated to do so in order to confuse the electorate of the district, to the
COMELEC on certiorari.3chanrobleslaw
disadvantage of complainant. Consequently, complainant filed a petition to declare
Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates.11chanrobleslaw
While the case was being tried at the RTC level, protestant Raquel Reyes De Guzman
(De Guzman) was represented by the Sales Law Office of Naga City, although Atty.
In connection with the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates,
Roque Bello (Atty. Bello), who indicated in the pleadings that his address is in Cainta,
complainant filed a Memorandum with the COMELEC through the Office of the
Rizal, was the chief counsel. Mayor Velarde, on the other hand, was represented by
Camarines Sur Provincial Election Supervisor (PES). Pertinent portions of the
Atty. Gualberto Manlagnit (Atty. Manlagnit) from Naga City. Atty. Manlagnit
Memorandum were quoted by the complainant in his petition for disbarment, 12 to
prepared the pleadings in connection with the appeal to the COMELEC but,
wit:
according to complainant, unknown to Atty. Manlagnit, another pleading was filed
before the COMELEC, which pleading was apparently prepared in Cainta, Rizal but
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. Complainant received a copy of the Verified Answer
was signed by respondent whose given address is in Quezon City.4chanrobleslaw
of Marita signed by respondent as counsel, whose given address is in Quezon City; and his desire for a more comprehensive experience in law practice, respondent
agreed to accept the case. Since he made it clear from the start that he has no
2. From the Answer, it was made to appear that Marita caused the preparation knowledge or experience in election cases, he was never part of the preparations in
thereof, read the allegations therein contained, and understood them. It was also connection with the case. Atty. Bello simply called him up for a meeting when the
made to appear that Marita signed the verification; pleading was ready so that he could sign the same. They agreed to meet somewhere
in Timog, Quezon City and after he read the pleading and sensing that there was no
3. During the hearing at the PES in San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur, on 23 January 2004, problem, he signed the same inside Atty. Bello's car. Thereafter, he attended the
respondent appeared and:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary initial hearing of the case, during which, the parties were required to submit their
a.) on record, admitted that the signature appearing on the Verified Answer is his; respective Memoranda.16chanrobleslaw

b.) officially manifested that he was hired by Marita as her counsel to prepare the Respondent claimed that up to that point, there were no indications about the true
Verified Answer; nature of the case. However, when he was preparing the required Memorandum, he
found telltale signs. After his two appearances before the COMELEC and the
c.) officially confirmed that the allegations in the Verified Answer were supplied by submission of the Memorandum, respondent declared that he never knew what
Marita; and cralawlawlibrary happened to the case as he formally withdrew therefrom immediately upon knowing
the circumstances of the case. He maintained that he cannot be held guilty of
d.) said that Marita was in his office in Quezon City when she "signed" the Verified representing conflicting interests because he never handled any previous case
Answer. involving either of the parties in the COMELEC case. Moreover, he was not properly
4. Marita arrived at the hearing to file a formal withdrawal of her COC. She was apprised of the facts and circumstances relative to the case that would render him
immediately put on the witness stand wherein she testified capable of intelligently deciding whether or not to accept the case. He likewise did
that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary not receive a single centavo as attorney's, acceptance or appearance fees in connection
a.) she did not know respondent; with the case. He agreed to handle the same simply to accommodate Atty. Bello and
to improve his skills as a lawyer and never for monetary
b.) she never solicited his legal services, particularly, to file the Verified Answer; considerations.17chanrobleslaw

c.) she never supplied the allegations contained in the Answer; With respect to the second incident, respondent related that he was at home in
Pangasinan on 17 January 2004 when he received a call from Atty. Bello asking him to
d.) the signature appearing in the Answer is not her signature; and cralawlawlibrary attend a hearing in Camarines Sur. He declined the request three times due to his
tight schedule. Atty. Bello pleaded, saying that even on Saturdays, hearings could be
e.) she could not have signed the verification in the Answer in Quezon City on 15 scheduled. Thus, even if he did not want to attend the hearing due to its distance and
January 2004 because she was in Bicol on that date.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary because of his full calendar, he could not refuse because he really did not schedule
The petition for disbarment also alleged that respondent admitted to Attys. Adan appointments and/or hearings on Saturdays. All that was told him regarding the case
Marcelo Botor and Atty. Manlagnit - complainant's counsels in the petition for was that a congressional candidate was being disqualified and a lawyer is needed to
disqualification before the PES-COMELEC — that Atty. Bello merely gave the defend him and his candidacy. Respondent alleged that according to Atty. Bello, the
Verified Answer to him already signed and notarized.14chanrobleslaw candidate was qualified and financially capable of funding his campaign.
Nevertheless, he clarified from Atty. Bello if the candidate is not a nuisance candidate
For his part, respondent narrated the following version of the events: and Atty. Bello allegedly replied: "Qualified na qualified naman talaga eh."
Respondent added that it was not disclosed to him that the disqualification case
cAnent the first incident, respondent alleged that he first met Atty. Bello sometime in involved a candidate for the third congressional district of Camarines Sur. He was
May, 2003 when the latter was introduced to him by a friend. A few months after simply informed that the scheduled hearing of the disqualification case would be on
their meeting, Atty. Bello called him up to ask if he could handle a case to be filed 23 January 2004 in Naga City.18chanrobleslaw
with the COMELEC since Atty. Bello had so many cases to handle. The case would be
to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with application for a Writ of Since respondent was in Pangasinan and due to the fact that the deadline for the
Preliminary Injunction from the COMELEC.15chanrobleslaw filing of the necessary pleading was nearing, Atty. Bello advised respondent that he
would just prepare the Answer and sign for respondent's name in the pleading.
According to respondent, he informed Atty. Bello that he has never before handled an Respondent maintained that he would not have agreed to Atty. Bello's proposal, had
election case, much less one with an application for a TRO with Preliminary it not been for the pressed urgency, trusting that he would not get into any
Injunction. Atty. Bello assured him that things would be difficult at first, but he trouble.19chanrobleslaw
would assist respondent and things will tuna out easier. Due to the assurance given
While waiting for the scheduled date of the hearing to arrive, he wondered why he whether Marita signed the Answer in his presence or not is inconsequential since he
has not been furnished a copy of the pleading or given additional instructions relative was not the notary public who notarized the Answer. He argued that his signature
to the case. Atty. Bello, in the meantime;, has ceased to communicate with him and pertains to the allegations in the Answer, while the signature of his client forms part
suddenly became inaccessible. He thus toyed with the impression that he was being of the verification and certification and that it is the duty of the notary public to see to
left out of the case for reasons he could not then understand. 20chanrobleslaw it that the person signing the pleading as a party is really the person referred to in the
verification/certification.24chanrobleslaw
According to respondent, he was able to get a copy of the Answer only when he was
already in Naga City and it was only then and there, while reading it, that he realized Finally, respondent declared that except for the modest appearance, cum
that the case was, in reality, about a nuisance candidate and that the client he was to transportation fees that he received, there was no monetary consideration for
appear for was, indeed, a nuisance candidate. What was even more surprising to him handling the petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates. He
was that the copy of the Answer that was given to him was unsigned: neither by him explained that when the case was offered to him, it was in haste and under a tenor of
nor by his supposed client. It was likewise not notarized. Finding the indefensibility urgency that the only impression he got was that the client was well-to-do and could
of his client and in order not to make matters worse, he opted to appear and just wage a decent campaign and was really a qualified candidate. He repeated the words
submit the case for resolution. To prove this point, respondent alleged that all he had of Atty. Bello: "qualified na qualifed sya." He emphasized that all he wanted was to
with him for the hearing were only the unsigned and unnotarized Answer, the expand his experience and practice as a lawyer.25cralawredchanrobleslaw
petition to declare Ebeta and Marita as nuisance candidates, his case calendar and
nothing else. Fie had not in his person any evidence whatsoever in support of the In his report and recommendation dated 17 April 2007, Investigating Commissioner
defense of his client. Respondent added that even at this point, he had no knowledge Edmund T. Espina found respondent guilty of the charges against him and
that his supposed client "had already jumped ship." More importantly, he did not recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month. The
know that her signature on the Answer was forged, precisely because the copy of the report, in part, reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Answer that1 was given to him was unsigned.21chanrobleslaw It taxes the undersigned Commissioner's imagination, however, that respondent
disclaims any knowledge in the above incidents and that he was just a "willing
Before the start of the hearing, respondent started looking for his client but she could victim" of the rather scheming tactics of a fellow lawyer, who, surprisingly he did not
not be found. He, nevertheless, proceeded to the hearing for it was immaterial to him even thought (sic) of running after and holding liable, even after all these charges
whether she was present or not as ho had already planned to simply submit the case filed against him. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that respondent himself had
for resolution. Unfortunately, respondent claimed, the proceedings before the PES knowledge of and allowed himself to be used by whoever should be properly held
started as a casual conversation with the lawyers for herein complainant and went on liable for these fraud and misrepresentation.
to a full trial, "wittingly or unwittingly."22chanrobleslaw
As regards the second incident, respondent argues that he could not be held guilty of
Respondent admitted that, during the hearing, he acknowledged; that the signature forgery, misrepresentation, and other related offenses. x x x If at all, respondent was
appearing on the Answer was his. He alleged that despite his personal aversion and forced to unwittingly represent an 'unwilling' client, all in the name of
objection to certain allegations in the Answer, he could not anymore deny the accommodation. Undersigned Commissioner disagrees.
signature above his printed name, even if it was only signed for and in his behalf,
because he had previously agreed, although unwillingly, that his name be signed in Respondent violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
the pleading. It, therefore, came as a surprise to him that of all the questions that can Responsibility. Respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing
be asked of him during the trial, he was questioned about his signature. Belatedly he to be counsel for an unknown client. x x x
realized that he should have objected to the line of questioning as he was being
presented as an unwilling witness for therein petitioner. However, without sufficient Undersigned Commissioner finds sufficient legal basis for disciplinary action against
exposure in the legal practice and wanting of the traits of a scheming lawyer, he respondent for the various misrepresentations and later, admissions before the
failed to seasonably object to the line of questioning.23chanrobleslaw COMELEC when confronted with his "supposed client", claiming that it was Arty.
Roque [sic] who merely gave him instructions and whose requests he merely
Nevertheless, respondent vehemently denied complainant's allegation that he accommodated. x x x
admitted having seen Marita sign the document in his presence. According to him, he
vividly recalls his response to the then query whether or not Marita signed the His shortcomings when he accepted to be a counsel for an unknown client in the
document in his presence as: "I suppose that is her signature." Likewise, when COMELEC protest (first incident) is in itself, already deplorable but to repeat the
queried further on the ideal that the pleading should be signed by Marita in his same infraction in the petition for disqualification (in the second incident) constitutes
presence as her counsel, he allegedly responded: "While it is the ideal, sometimes we negligence of contumacious proportions. It is even worse that respondent has
lawyers, like you and I, sign documents even if the client is not around due to our attempted to mitigate his liability by professing ignorance or innocence of the whole
busy schedules." He pointed out to the two lawyers of herein complainant that thing, a matter that, too, is inexcusable. Clearly, it is a lame excuse that respondent
did offer. By his own confession, he was woefully handled a case involving conflict of interest, "knowingly" alleged untruths in
negligent.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary pleadings, and that he "intentionally" committed misrepresentation and falsification.
On 19 September 2007, Resolution No. XVIII-2007-99 was passed by the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resolving to adopt and In connection with the first incident, complainant alleged that respondent perpetrated
approve the above report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It acts constituting intentional misrepresentation and knowingly handling a case
thereafter forwarded the report to: the Supreme Court as required under Section involving conflict of interest when he appeared as counsel for Mayor Velarde in the
12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.27chanrobleslaw COMELEC case. Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
On 22 August 2012, the Court issued the questioned Resolution adopting the above- consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Jurisprudence has
quoted findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner. The Court, however, provided three tests in determining whether a violation of this rule is present in a
increased the period of suspension from the recommended one (1) month to one (1) given case, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
year. The same Resolution also resolved to:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
xxxx 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
2. IMPLEAD Attys. Roque Bello and Carmencita A. Rous-Gonzaga in this for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
administrative proceedings; and cralawlawlibrary
Another test of inconsistency of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation
3. REMAND the whole records of this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
further Investigation, report and recommendation with respect to the charges against loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
ATTY. ROQUE BELLO and ATTY. CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA. performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called
Respondent is now before us seeking a reconsideration of the aforementioned upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information
Resolution insofar as the penalty imposed against him is concerned. acquired through their connection or previous employment. 31 (Emphasis omitted)
Based on the foregoing criteria, there must be a previous lawyer-client relationship in
Respondent points out that from the very start, he had been very candid as to the order for the liability to attach. Clearly, respondent cannot be held liable under any of
factual backdrop of the present case. He never denied that he should have evaluated the three aforementioned tests because he was never a counsel for either party in the
the situation first before agreeing to be a counsel for an unknown client. He does not COMELEC case prior to the filing of the said action. Complainant, however, would
refute, nor does he argue against, the finding of the Commission on Bar Discipline have us believe that respondent is the "furtive" or "clandestine" partner of Atty. Bello
that he was remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he accommodated the requests of a so as to justify his accusation that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
fellow lawyer to represent an unknown client. However, respondent argues, such interests. Complainant, however, failed to present sufficient evidence in support of
negligence is not the negligence "of contumacious proportions" warranting the his allegation. The mere fact that respondent agreed to handle a case for Atty. Bello
imposition of the penalty of suspension. Likewise, such negligence is not tantamount does not - alone - prove that they are indeed partners. This Court is inclined to give
to having knowledge of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation, for the simple more weight and credence to the explanation proffered by respondent: that is, he
reason that he did not know the details of the election case until its hearing on 23 accepted the case without being fully aware of the real facts and circumstances
January 2004 in Naga City. He maintains that if such fraud and misrepresentation surrounding it. His narration is straightforward enough to be worthy of belief,
really exists, his "only fault was that he allowed himself to be duped to unwittingly especially considering that he withdrew from the case after he realized its true nature,
represent an 'unwilling' client, all in the name of accommodation." as evidenced by the "Withdrawal as Counsel" 32 he filed before the COMELEC.

Our Ruling With respect to the charge of intentional misrepresentation, complainant failed to
specify which act of respondent constituted the alleged offense. If the alleged
We find respondent's motion for reconsideration partially meritorious. misrepresentation pertains to the act of respondent of signing the pleading prepared
by Atty. Bello, we do not agree with complainant and the same cannot be considered
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or the suspension of a as misrepresentation since respondent specified in his Comment that he read the
member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition pleading before he affixed his signature thereto. He was, therefore, aware of the
of the said administrative penalties28 and the burden of proof rests upon the statements contained in the pleading and his act of signing the same signifies that he
complaint.29 "Preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence adduced by one agreed to the allegations therein contained. On the other hand, if the
side is, as a whole, superior to or has a greater weight than that of the other. It means misrepresentation alleged by complainant refers to the allegations in the pleading
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief compared to the filed by respondent before the COMELEC, again, it cannot be said that there was
presented contrary evidence."30 In the case at bar, complainant failed to present clear "intentional" misrepresentation on the part of respondent since, as admitted by
and preponderant evidence in support of his claim that respondent "knowingly" respondent and as complainant himself asserted, the allegations therein contained
were supplied by Atty. Bello, which allegations, at that time the pleading was signed, has not adduced any proof in support thereof. As a result, this Court cannot give any
respondent did not know were inaccurate. As pointed out above, as soon as the true merit to his accusation.
nature of the situation revealed itself, respondent withdrew from the case.
The same is true in connection with complainant's allegation that respondent falsely
Regarding the second incident, complainant claimed that, in connection with the testified and made misrepresentations during the nuisance candidate case hearing
petition to declare Marita as a nuisance candidate, respondent committed falsification before the PES by manifesting that he is the lawyer of Marita, that the allegations in
and knowingly alleged untruths, not only in Marita's Verified Answer to the the Answer were supplied by Marita and that Marita was in his office when she
disqualification case against her, but during the hearing of the case, as well. As with signed the Answer's verification. Apart from his allegations, complainant has not
the first incident, respondent maintained that he accepted the case without being presented any evidence, as for instance, the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
fully aware of the circumstances relative thereto, this time because of the insistence of the proceedings, to prove that respondent indeed made the statements attributed
and urgency with which Atty. Bello made the request. to him and to enable this Court to properly evaluate the transgressions ascribed to
respondent.
We earlier noted respondent's candor in explaining his cause. His candidness about
the events leading to this administrative complaint against him is demonstrated by It is well to note that respondent vehemently denied having admitted seeing Marita
the following declarations he made: (1) having agreed to have his name signed in the sign the Verification before his presence in his office in Quezon City. He insisted that
pleading on his behalf, he cannot now deny the signature above his printed his response, when queried about Marita's signature, was that: "I suppose that is her
name;33 (2) he believed the assurances of his fellow lawyers (counsels for herein signature." This Court finds it unreasonable - illogical, even - that after having
complainant) that whatever may have been said in confidence between them will not admitted the blunders he committed in this case, he would now deny this particular
be revealed to anybody for whatever reason;34 and (3) he failed to seasonably object to circumstance, unless he was in fact telling the truth. In any case, as explained by
the line of questioning relative to his signature on Marita's Answer, thereby respondent, it is of no moment whether or not he saw Marita sign the Verification
incriminating himself and making him an unwilling witness for the opposing party, since he was not the notary public who notarized the Answer. Respondent's signature
because of his insufficient experience in the legal practice and as a result of his lack of in the Answer refers to the allegations therein, whereas the signature of Marita forms
the traits of a scheming lawyer.35 These straightforward statements, coupled with the part of the Verification which states that "she has caused the preparation of the
legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is foregoing Answer and has read the contents thereof which are true and correct of her
proven,36 keep us from treating respondent's proffered explanation as an indication of own personal knowledge." Respondent is, therefore, correct when he pointed out that
mendacity.37 This Court is, therefore, compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt it is the responsibility of the notary public administering the oath to make sure that
and apply in his favor the presumption that he acted in good faith, especially the signature in the Verification really belongs to the person who executed the same.
considering the failure of complainant to present clear and convincing evidence in
support of his allegations. It must be emphasized that "the Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the
complainant establishes [his] case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. x x
Thus, with respect to the charge that respondent "knowingly" alleged untruths in the x When the pieces of evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or when doubt exists
supposed Verified Answer of Marita, he admitted that on the preponderance of evidence, the equipoise rule dictates that the decision
be against the party carrying the burden of proof."41chanrobleslaw
Marita's Answer was prepared by Atty. Bello, whom respondent likewise authorized
to sign his name on the pleading on his behalf. This statement was corroborated by The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be said that respondent has no liability at all
complainant himself when he alleged in his petition for disbarment that "Atty. John under the circumstances. His folly, though, consists in his negligence in accepting the
Reyes admitted to the two counsels of then candidate Teodoro Cruz, Jr. x x x that the subject cases without first being fully apprised of and evaluating the circumstances
Answer was merely passed to him by Atty. Bello already signed and notarized." surrounding them. We, nevertheless, agree with respondent that such negligence is
Consequently, respondent cannot be held liable for "knowingly" alleging untruths for not of contumacious proportions as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of
the simple reason that the allegations in the Answer were not supplied by him. suspension. This Court find the penalty of suspension for one (1) year earlier imposed
on respondent too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed. "The power
Neither can respondent be held guilty of falsification in connection with the forged to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of
signature of Marita. "The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed
cannot be given credence."38 Complainant merely alleged that Marita's signature in as a penalty."42 The penalty to be meted out on an errant lawyer depends on the
the Answer "was forged either by Attorney Roque Bello or respondent x x x"39 and exercise of sound judicial discretion taking into consideration the facts surrounding
that respondent falsified or caused the falsification of the signature because "he is the each case.43chanrobleslaw
one who presented the same to the COMELEC, hence, presumed to be the one who
falsified the same."40 Other than this presumption and bare allegation, complainant In this connection, the following circumstances should be taken into consideration in
order to mitigate respondent's responsibility: first respondent exhibited enough 2015 submitting the case for report and recommendation.
candor to admit that he was negligent and remiss in his duties as a lawyer when he
accommodated the request of another lawyer to handle a case without being first On March 26, 2015, however, respondent belatedly filed his Answer[10] praying for the
apprised of the details and acquainted with the circumstances relative thereto; and dismissal of the instant complaint. Respondent averred that he had no lawyer-client
second, since this is his first offense, respondent "is entitled to some measure of relationship with complainant as his client was the latter's wife, Reposo. Further,
forbearance."44chanrobleslaw while respondent admitted the receipt of P100,000.00 and that no petition for
annulment was filed, he denied being remiss in his duties as a lawyer, explaining that
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration such non-filing was due to, inter alia, Reposo's failure to pay the full acceptance fee
is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated 22 August 2012 is amounting to P150,000.00, as well as to produce her psychiatric evaluation report.
hereby modified in that respondent Atty, John G. Reyes is REPRIMANDED for his Finally, respondent claimed that his failure to return the P100,000.00 fee he collected
failure to exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of the legal was due to the fact that he lost most of his assets due to Typhoon Yolanda.
profession. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall Nevertheless, he signified his intention to return said fee as soon as he recovers from
be dealt with more severely. his dire financial condition.[11]

DIVISION The IBP's Report and Recommendation

[ AC. No. 11323, Sep 14, 2016 ]
NICOLAS ROBERT MARTIN EGGER v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. DURAN + In its Report and Recommendation[12] dated April 21, 2015, the IBP-CBD found
RESOLUTION respondent administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be meted
the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: ordered to return the amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from April25, 2014 to
complainants. It was likewise recommended that respondent show compliance with
For the Court's resolution is a Complaint[1] dated November 27, 2014 filed before the such directives within thirty (30) days from the finality of the suspension order by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by complainant Nicolas Robert Martin Egger Court.[13] Essentially, the IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating Canon 18 of
(complainant) against respondent Atty. Francisco P. Duran (respondent), praying that the CPR for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him (i.e., the filing of the petition
the latter be meted disciplinary sanctions for his failure to perform his undertaking as for annulment of marriage), and Canon 16 of the same for his failure to hold in trust
counsel and to return complainant's money despite demand and earlier promise to do all the money he received from complainant. [14]
so, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
In a Resolution[15] dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the aforesaid report and recommendation with modification deleting the
The Facts imposition of legal interest.

Complainant alleged that on January 22, 2014, he engaged respondent's services to

file on his behalf a petition for the annulment of his marriage. As consideration The Issue Before the Court
therefor, complainant deposited the total amount of P100,000.00 to respondent's bank
account, spread over two (2) tranches of P50,000.00 each. Despite such payment, The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
respondent never prepared, much less filed, said petition. This prompted administratively liable for violating the CPR.
complainant to terminate respondent's services due to loss of trust and confidence.
Further, complainant, through his wife,[2] Dioly Rose Reposo (Reposo), wrote a
letter[3] demanding for the return of the P100,000.00 he gave to respondent as lawyer's
fees. In reply, respondent wrote complainant a letter[4] promising the return of the The Court's Ruling
aforesaid amount before the end of May 2014. However, respondent did not fulfill his
promise, prompting complainant to hire a new counsel, who in turn, wrote another A judicious perusal of the records reveals that sometime in January 2014, complainant
letter[5] demanding for the return of the said lawyer's fees. As the second demand and Reposo had already forged a lawyer-client relationship with respondent,
letter went unheeded, complainant filed the instant case against respondent. [6] considering that the latter agreed to file a petition for annulment of marriage in their
behalf, and in connection therewith, received the aggregate amount of P100,000.00
In various issuances, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) required representing legal fees. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client relationship
respondent to file his Answer,[7] as well as to appear in the mandatory conference, commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to handle a client's case and
[8]
 but the latter failed to do so. Resultantly, the IBP issued an Order[9] dated March 18, accepts money representing legal fees from the latter,[16] as in this case. Respondent's
contention that he only has a lawyer-client relationship with Reposo but not with her "The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes
husband, the complainant, is belied by the letter[17] dated April 25, 2014 signed by no on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this
less than Reposo herself which shows that she and complainant jointly sought the relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property
services of respondent to work on their annulment case, but had to eventually collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon
withdraw therefrom on account of respondent's failure to render any actual legal demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the
service despite their agreement and payment of legal fees amounting to P100,000.00. presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the
trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter well as of professional ethics."[20]
with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and
devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and Having established respondent's administrative liability, the Court now determines
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. [18] This is the proper penalty to be imposed upon him.
commanded by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads:
Case law provides that in similar instances where lawyers neglected their client's
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND affairs and at the same time failed to return the latter's money and/or property
DILIGENCE. despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[21] the Court suspended the lawyer for a
xxxx period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his
retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the
Rule 18.03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his latter.[22] Similarly, in Meneses v. Macalino,[23] the same penalty was imposed on a
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. lawyer who failed to render any legal service to his client, as well as to return the
However, respondent admittedly breached this duty when he failed to prepare, much money he received for such purpose.[24] These pronouncements notwithstanding,
less file, the appropriate pleading to initiate complainant and Reposo's case. before there have been instances where the Court tempered the penalty imposed upon a
the proper court. Respondent's additional contention that his failure to file the lawyer due to humanitarian and equitable considerations.[25] In view of the foregoing,
petition was due to complainant and Reposo's failure to remit the full acceptance fee and taking into consideration respondent's dire financial condition brought by
of P150,000.00 is not an excuse to abandon his client's cause considering that his duty Typhoon Yolanda and his willingness to return the money he received from
to safeguard his client's interests commences from his retainer until his effective complainant as soon as he recovers from such economic status, the Court finds it
discharge from the case or the final disposition of the entire subject matter of appropriate to sustain the recommended suspension from the practice of law for a
litigation. To reiterate, respondent's act of agreeing to handle complainant's case, period of six (6) months.
coupled with his acceptance of the partial payment of P100,000.00, already
established an attorney-client relationship that gave rise to his duty of fidelity to the Finally, the Court sustains the IBP's recommendation ordering respondent to return
client's cause.[19] Indubitably, respondent's neglect of a legal matter entrusted him by the amount of P100,000.00 he received from complainant as legal fees. It is well to
complainant and Reposo constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be note that "while the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should
held administratively liable. only revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative and
not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to
Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature for instance, when the claim
he failed to return the amount of P100,000.00 representing the legal fees that involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and
complainant paid him, viz.: distinct and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement."[26] Hence, since
respondent received the aforesaid amount as part of his legal fees, the Court finds the
return thereof to be in order.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Duran is found guilty of violating Rules
16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
or from the client. period of six (6) months, effective upon the finality of this Decision, and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
xxxx severely.

Rule 16.03 -A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or Further, respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Nicolas Robert Martin
upon demand. x x x. Egger the legal fees he received from the latter in the amount of P100,000.00 within
ninety (90) days from the finality of this Decision. Failure to comply with the and Paler. However, despite his constant prodding, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler
foregoing directive will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. could not present any petition and instead, offered excuses for the delay, saying that:
(a) they still had to look for a psychologist to examine Mutya; (b) they were still
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be looking for a "friendly" court and public prosecutor; and (c) they were still
appended to respondent's personal record as a member of the Bar. Likewise, let deliberating where to file the case.3 They promised that the petition would be filed on
copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of or before the end of June 2004, but such date passed without any petition being filed.
the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the As an excuse, they reasoned out that the petition could not be filed since they have
country for their information and guidance. yet to talk to the judge who they insinuated will favorably resolve complainant's
petition.4chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. Sometime in the third week of July 2004, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler asked for an
Bersamin, J., on official leave. additional payment of P250,000.00 in order for them to continue working on the case.
Hoping that his petition would soon be filed, complainant dutifully paid the said
amount on July 23, 2004, which was again received by Atty. Cruz-Angeles.5 However,
to complainant's dismay, no appreciable progress took place. When complainant
CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, inquired about the delay in the filing of the case, Atty. Cruz-Angeles attempted to
ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF THE ease his worries by saying that the draft petition was already submitted to the judge
ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE, Respondent. for editing and that the petition will soon be finalized. 6chanrobleslaw

In the last week of September 2004, complainant received a text message from Atty.
DECISION
Cruz-Angeles informing him that the National Statistics Office bore no record of his
marriage. The latter explained then that this development was favorable to
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: complainant's case because, instead of the proposed petition for annulment of
marriage, they would just need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
For the Court's resolution is a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed on February 11, 2005 by She also informed complainant that they would send someone to verify the records of
complainant Cleo B. Dongga-as (complainant), before the Integrated Bar of the his marriage at the Local Civil Registrar of La Trinidad, Benguet (Civil Registrar)
Philippines (IBP) – Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), against respondents Atty. where his marriage was celebrated. However, upon complainant's independent
Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles (Atty. Cruz-Angeles), Atty. Wylie M. Paler (Atty. Paler), verification through his friend, he discovered that the records of his marriage in the
and Atty. Angeles Grandea (Atty. Grandea; collectively, respondents) of the Angeles, Civil Registrar were intact, and that the alleged absence of the records of his marriage
Grandea & Paler Law Office (law firm), charging them of various violations of the was a mere ruse to cover up the delay in the filing of the petition. 7chanrobleslaw
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for, inter alia, refusing to return the money
given by complainant in exchange for legal services which respondents failed to Utterly frustrated with the delay in the filing of his petition for annulment,
perform. complainant went to respondents' law office to terminate their engagement and to
demand for a refund of the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 he earlier paid them.
The Facts However, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler refused to return the said amount, and to
complainant's surprise, sent him two (2) billing statements dated October 5, 20048 and
Complainant alleged that sometime in May 2004, he engaged the law firm of October 10, 20049 in the amounts of P258,000.00 and P324,000.00, respectively.
respondents to handle the annulment of his marriage with his wife, Mutya Filipinas Notably, the October 5, 2004 billing statement included a fee for "consultants
Puno-Dongga-as (Mutya). In his meeting with Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler, (prosecutors)" amounting to P45,000.00.10 In view of the foregoing, complainant filed
complainant was told that: (a) the case would cost him P300,000.00, with the first the instant Complaint-Affidavit before the IBP-CBD, docketed as CBD Case No. 05-
P100,000.00 payable immediately and the remaining P200,000.00 payable after the 1426.
final hearing of the case; (b) respondents will start working on the case upon receipt
of PI00,000.00, which will cover the acceptance fee, psychologist fee, and filing fees; In her defense,11 Atty. Cruz-Angeles admitted to have received a total of P350,000.00
and (c) the time-frame for the resolution of the case will be around three (3) to four (4) from complainant,12 but denied that she was remiss in her duties, explaining that the
months from filing. Accordingly, complainant paid respondents P100,000.00 which delay in the filing of the petition for annulment of marriage was due to complainant's
was duly received by Atty. Cruz-Angeles.2chanrobleslaw failure to give the current address of Mutya and provide sufficient evidence to
support the petition.13 Further, Atty. Cruz-Angeles alleged that it was Atty. Paler who
From then on, complainant constantly followed-up his case with Attys. Cruz-Angeles was tasked to draft and finalize the petition.14 For his part,15 Atty. Paler moved for the
dismissal of the case for failure to state a cause of action, arguing too that legal matter entrusted to them by their client constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule
complainant filed the present administrative complaint only to avoid payment of 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
attorney's fees.16chanrobleslaw CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
In a Report and Recommendation17 dated July 10, 2012, the IBP Investigating negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Commissioner found Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler administratively liable and, Case law exhorts that, "once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-
accordingly, recommended that they be meted the penalty of suspension from the bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with
practice of law for four (4) months. However, Atty. Grandea was exonerated of any diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes
liability as his participation in the charges has not been discussed, much less fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
proven.18chanrobleslaw reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by
his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant indeed engaged the services administratively liable,"25cralawred as in this case.
of Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler in order to annul his marriage with his wife, Mutya.
Despite receiving the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 from complainant, Attys. In this relation, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Cruz-Angeles and Paler neglected the legal matter entrusted to them, as evidenced by Canon 16 of the CPR when they failed to return to complainant the amount of
their failure to just even draft complainant's petition for annulment despite being P350,000.00 representing their legal fees, viz. :
engaged for already five (5) long months.19 Moreover, as pointed out by the CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
Investigating Commissioner, despite their preliminary assessment that complainant's PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
petition would not likely prosper, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler still proceeded to
collect an additional P250,000.00 from complainant. Worse, they even billed him an Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
exorbitant sum of P324,000.00.20 Thus, the Investigating Commissioner opined that or from the client.
the amounts respondents had already collected and would still want to further collect
from complainant can hardly be spent for research in connection with the annulment Rule 16.03– A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
case that was not filed at all. Neither can they cover just fees for Attys. Cruz-Angeles upon demand, x x x.
and Paler who did nothing to serve complainant's cause.21chanrobleslaw It bears stressing that "the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly
fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for
In a Resolution22 dated September 28, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's
approved the aforesaid Report and Recommendation, with modification increasing failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this
the recommended penalty to two (2) years suspension from the practice of law. Atty. case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use
Cruz-Angeles moved for reconsideration,23 which was, however, denied in a in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of
Resolution24 dated June 7, 2015. general morality, as well as of professional ethics."26chanrobleslaw

The Issue Before the Court Furthermore, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler misrepresented to complainant that the
delay in the filing of his petition for annulment was due to the fact that they were still
The essential issue in this case is whether or not Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler looking for a "friendly" court, judge, and public prosecutor who will not be too much
should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR. of a hindrance in achieving success in the annulment case. In fact, in the two (2)
billing statements dated October 5, 200427 and October 10, 2004,28 Attys. Cruz-Angeles
The Court's Ruling and Paler made it appear that they went to various locations to look for a suitable
venue in filing the said petition, and even paid various amounts to prosecutors and
A judicious perusal of the records reveals that sometime in May 2004, complainant members of the National Bureau of Investigation to act as their "consultants." Such
secured the services of Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler for the purpose of annulling his misrepresentations and deceits on the part of Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler are
marriage with Mutya, and in connection therewith, paid Attys. Cruz-Angeles and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, viz.:
Paler the aggregate sum of P350,000.00 representing legal fees. However, despite the CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
passage of more than five (5) months from the engagement, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Paler failed to file the appropriate pleading to initiate the case before the proper court;
and worse, could not even show a finished draft of such pleading. Such neglect of the
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful performed. Also, in Agot v. Rivera,  35 the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of
conduct. two (2) years for his (a) failure to handle the legal matter entrusted to him and to
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that "[a]s officers of the court, lawyers are return the legal fees in connection therewith; and (b) misrepresentation that he was
bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, an immigration lawyer, when in truth, he was not. Finally, in Spouses Lopez v.
honesty, integrity, and fair dealing."29 Clearly, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler fell Limos, 36 the Court suspended the erring lawyer for three (3) years for her failure to
short of such standard when they committed the afore-described acts of file a petition for adoption on behalf of complainants, return the money she received
misrepresentation and deception against complainant. Their acts are not only as legal fees, and for her commission of deceitful acts in misrepresenting that she had
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they also reveal already filed such petition when nothing was actually filed, resulting in undue
basic moral flaws that make Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler unfit to practice prejudice to therein complainants. In this case, not only did Attys. Cruz-Angeles and
law.30chanrobleslaw Paler fail to file complainant's petition for annulment of marriage and return what the
latter paid them as legal fees, they likewise misrepresented that they can find a court,
As members of the Bar, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler should not perform acts that judge, and prosecutor who they can easily influence to ensure a favorable resolution
would tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as of such petition, to the detriment of the judiciary and the national prosecutorial
insinuating that they can find a "friendly" court and judge that will ensure a favorable service. Under these circumstances, the Court individually imposes upon Attys.
ruling in complainant's annulment case. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers Cruz-Angeles and Paler the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
of the court to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts period of three (3) years.
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without this guarantee, the
institution would be resting on very shaky foundations. 31 This is the very thrust of Finally, the Court sustains the IBP's recommendation ordering Attys. Cruz-Angeles
Canon 11 of the CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the and Paler to return the amount of P350,000.00 they received from complainant as
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct legal fees. It is well to note that "while the Court has previously held that disciplinary
by others." Hence, lawyers who are remiss in performing such sworn duty violate the proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the respondent-
aforesaid Canon 11, and as such, should be held administratively liable and penalized lawyer's administrative and not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule
accordingly, as in this case.[32]chanrobleslaw remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature – for
instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a
Moreover, Canon 7 of the CPR commands every lawyer to "at all times uphold the transaction separate and distinct and not intrinsically linked to his professional
integrity and dignity of the legal profession" for the strength of the legal profession engagement."37 Hence, since Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler received the aforesaid
lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyer's duty to maintain amount as part of their legal fees, the Court finds the return thereof to be in order.
the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions
beyond reproach. It must be reiterated that as an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Wylie M.
sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem Paler are found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 11, Rule
and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice; as 18.03, Canon 18, and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
acts and/or omissions emanating from lawyers which tend to undermine the judicial Responsibility. Accordingly, each of them is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
edifice is disastrous to the continuity of the government and to the attainment of the of law for a period of three (3) years, effective upon the finality of this Decision, with
liberties of the people. Thus, all lawyers should be bound not only to safeguard the a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
good name of the legal profession, but also to keep inviolable the honor, prestige, and more severely.
reputation of the judiciary.33 In this case, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler compromised
the integrity not only of the judiciary, but also of the national prosecutorial service, by Likewise, respondents Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. Wylie M. Paler
insinuating that they can influence a court, judge, and prosecutor to cooperate with are ORDERED to return to complainant Cleo B. Dongga-as the legal fees they
them to ensure the annulment of complainant's marriage. Indubitably, Attys. Cruz- received from the latter in the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 within ninety (90)
Angeles and Paler also violated Canon 7 of the CPR, and hence, they should be held days from the finality of this Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive
administratively liable therefor. will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

Anent the proper penalty for Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler, jurisprudence provides Meanwhile, the complaint as against Atty. Angeles Grandea is DISMISSED for lack
that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs, failed to return the of merit.
latter's money and/or property despite demand, and at the same time committed acts
of misrepresentation and deceit against their clients, the Court imposed upon them Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the country for their information and
In Jinon v. Jiz 34 the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his guidance and be attached to respondents' personal records as attorney.
failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never
 briefing him on their concern, and delivering to him the documents pertinent to their
land; that after scrutinizing the documents, he had told them that he would be
initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify the order for the reconstitution
of the lost title covering Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351; that he had then insinuated that one of
their lots would be his attorney's fees; and that they had not initially agreed to the
insinuation because the lots had already been allocated to each of their seven
EN BANC children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him only a portion of Lot No.
37926-H with an area of 250 square meters n.3chanrobleslaw
A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016
It appears that soon after t he respondent unilaterally prepared the document so-
called Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EMELIE P. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BANGOT, JR., Respondent.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
DECISION
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryI, ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., of legal age, married
and a resident of Lot 13, Block 1, Xavier Heights Subd., Upper Balulang, Cagayan de
BERSAMIN, J.:
Oro City, hereinafter referred as the FIRST PARTY; and cralawlawlibrary

A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness in dealing with his clients, and WE, SPOUSES EMILIO JACINTO AND ALICIA JACINTO, both legal age, and
shall only charge fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. He should not residents of Cagayan de Oro City, herein referred as the SECOND PARTY;
excessively estimate the value of his professional services. In drawing up the terms of
his professional engagement, he should not practice deceit. The clients are entitled to WITNESSETH:
rescind the written agreement on his professional fees if the terms thereof
contravened the true agreement of the parties. 1. That the FIRST PARTY shall be the counsel/lawyer of the SECOND PARTY,
regarding their parcel of land formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-
Antecedents 3387 with an area of 4,138 sq. m., located at Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City,
presently subdivided into 8 lots with individual certificate of titles (sic);
This administrative case stems from the complaint brought on December 8, 2009 by
the Spouses Emilio and Alicia Jacinto, then 81 and 76 years of age, respectively, 2. That the First Party shall get 300 sq. m., from Lot No. 37925-G covered by TCT No.
against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for the latter's unjust and dishonest treatment of 121708
them as his clients. They hereby seek that he be sanctioned for his
actuations.1chanrobleslaw 3. That this agreement shall take effect immediately upon the signing of the parties
(sic) cannot be revoked, amended or modified by the Second Party without the
The complainants averred that a private survey team had conducted a survey of Cad. consent of the First Party.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
237 Lot No. 1351 on October 10-11, 2008 pursuant to the order of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in connection with the reconstitution of the The complainants recalled that on October 17, 2008 the respondent requested them to
lost certificate of title of said lot by the owners; that after conducting the perimeter proceed to his law office. What thereafter transpired and that led to the signing of the
survey, the survey team had tried to enter the premises owned by them but they had MOA were set forth in their complaint, as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
prevented the team from doing so because their premises had already been On October 17, 2008, my wife received a phone call from the office of Atty. Bangot
segregated by virtue of the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-3387; that directing us to go to his office to sign documents they have prepared. The phone call
their land covered by OCT No. P-3387 had already been subdivided into nine lots; was relayed to me by my wife so we immediately proceeded to his office arriving
that the survey team had then desisted from proceeding with their survey of their thereat at exactly 4:00 PM. The daughter of Atty. Bangot handed to us two sets of
land but had nonetheless informed them that they would return another time for the documents for our signatures. Because of full trust to Atty. Bangot, we did not bother
survey; and that this had forced them to consult a lawyer on the legal remedies to reading the contents of the documents. Per instruction, we brought the papers to their
prevent the intrusion on their property.2chanrobleslaw friend lawyer for notarization and after the notarization returned to the office where
we were given our personal file, without reading every detail of the documents.

The complainants further averred that they had then consulted with the respondent, Upon arriving at our residence, I read the contents of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA). Said MOA was not signed by Atty. Bangot and did not bear the Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
signature of witnesses. I was surprised to know that the terms of the (MOA) did not
reflect the true intentions being contemplated in our previous discussions. Contrary In due course, IBP Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero submitted his Report and
to what I have told him, a different area which is 37925-G under TCT No. 121708 was Recommendation9 finding the complaint against the respondent meritorious, and
written. I already told him that my other lots including the lot written in the MOA recommending that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
could no longer be. disposed of because these lots were already committed to each of year for his unfair and injudicious treatment of the complainants as his clients.
my children. The lot area was also increased from 250 sq. m. to 300 sq. m. Because of
this situation, I called my wife and children and told them about the problem. My In Resolution No. XX-2013-71,10 the IBP Board of Governors increased the duration of
daughter whose share was involved reacted badly and she was hurt because she will the respondent's recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for
then be deprived of her place to live in, in the future. We continued our discussion two years, viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
and we decided to see Atty. Bangot to have the MOA be revoked because we felt that RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND
we were deceived, Atty. Bangot took advantage of our old age, thus breaking the APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
trust and confidence the client[']s and lawyer should uphold at all times in the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
exercise of one's profession. Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering that
As a gesture of acknowledging his efforts, we offered to pay him in cash, fair enough Respondent breached his duty of candor and fairness to his client, Atty. Emelie P.
for the services he had rendered to us. However, he refused to revoke the MOA Bangot, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.
because accordingly, he would consult his wife which finally did not materialize Through its Resolution No. XXI-2014-315,11 the IBP Board of Governors denied the
because his wife was not amenable which in effect showed that they have vested respondent's motion for reconsideration.
interest on the property and they are bent on taking the property at any cause. He
even challenged us to file an appropriate case in court against him rather than agree Issue
with our pleading for payment of cash. Likewise, he refused our offer to pay his
services in cash alleging that he already filed a Manifestation in court and claimed Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings
that our possession would not be disturbed and that he will be filing a case for with the complainants?
Certiorari as promised.
Ruling of the Court
To our surprise though, we came to know that the Manifestation filed by Atty. Bangot
is not a preparatory pleading for certiorari. No way could it even stop the intrusion We find and hold that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer's Oath and his
into our property. Basically, we were deceived by Atty. Bangot into believing that the ethical duties as an attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in his
Manifestation he filed would stop any legal disturbance on our property and the dealings with his clients.
same is preparatory for certiorari.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Feeling aggrieved, the complainants decided to bring their complaint against the The findings of IBP Commissioner Cachapero, which sufficiently described the
respondent. violations of the respondent, provide an irrefutable insight into the gravity of the
violations by the respondent, as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On his part, the respondent denied the allegations of the complainants. He insisted The question to ask is, "Was the MOA fair to the parties and entered into by them in
that the complaint against him was a harassment tactic designed to intimidate him goodfaith?"
from seeking judicial remedies to settle their dispute on the validity of the MOA;6 that
the MOA was valid; that the Manifestation for Information he had filed in court The undersigned resolves in the negative. To begin with, the conduct of Respondent
prevented the intrusion into the complainants' land; that the administrative had evinced an instinctive interest in the property of Complainants. He had the MOA
complaint was designed to insure the derailment of his application for a judgeship executed at the same time he filed the Manifestation for Information before the court
position, and to cover up the negligence of the complainants' counsel as the plaintiffs that was hearing LRC Case No. 98-010. Not only that, Respondent's proposal to have
in Civil Case No. 2008-302 (for annulment and/or rescission of agreement), which a MOA executed between him and the Complainant was meant to impress that his
case was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement for the prior barangay supposed attorney's fees would be paid on contingent basis, however, a perusal of the
conciliation proceedings; and that they had voluntarily signed the MOA without MOA indicates that the payment of Respondents' fee by way of a real property is
intimidation, fraud or undue influence.7chanrobleslaw being made immediately effective upon execution of the agreement.

As to the agreement of the Complainant and the Respondent, the undersigned gives
On August 23, 2010, the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the full faith to the allegation of Complainant that the payment of Respondent's
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 8chanrobleslaw attorney's fees by way of a real property would come from TCT No. 121709 and not
T-121708. Complainants explained that the latter lot had already been committed to the Lawyer's Oath by receiving property of a substantial value from the complainants
their seven (7) children especially because this lot is situated in a prime location thus after having made them believe that he could ensure their land from intrusion by
they could not have picked the same over Lot No. 121709. The Respondent knew third parties. He took advantage of them who had reposed their full trust and
straightforwardly that lot 121708 was a better lot yet Respondent gave a different confidence in his ability to perform the task by virtue of his being a lawyer. He was
account of their agreement and took advantage of the frailty and advance ages (sic) of definitely bent on obtaining Lot No. 37925-G than in protecting the complainants'
his clients. interest in their property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give cash for
his attorney's fees instead of the land. We sadly note in this connection that his
But, the most shocking of all, is the apparent inequity or disproportion between the changing the property ostensibly agreed upon with the bigger lot as payment for his
amount of attorney's fees (measured from the value of the property taken by Respondent) legal services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the relationship. He maintained the
and the effort or service already performed or still to be performed by him. The deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA against them through the action for specific
Complainants were not made parties to the LRC case or any other case and performance.
Respondent filed a mere two-paged Manifestation for Information in court which he
did almost effortlessly. It is not clear how the court had reacted to the manifestation Surely, the totality of the respondent's actuations inevitably eroded public trust in the
but Respondent did not follow it up with [any] other action. Despite the same, Legal Profession. On the basis of his acts and actuations, the attorney's fees in the
Respondent stuck to his tale that the Complainants had signed [the] MOA and form of the lot he charged from them were unconscionable and unreasonable, and
despite his minimal representation of the Complainants in court, he held on to his should be struck down for failing to pass muster under the aforestated guidelines.
idea that he had taken from his clients valid title to a million [pesos] worth of real
estate in payment of his fees. The respondent appears to have impressed on the complainants at the time of their
negotiations that the attorney's fees in the form of the lot would be delivered to him
The undersigned does not see fairness and judiciousness to Respondent's treatment of only on a contingent basis. Again, he had misrepresented himself to them because the
his clients, 81 and 76 years old, respectively, and he need not add to his brief express terms of the MOA stipulated that "this agreement shall take effect
disquisition in this regard.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary immediately upon the signing of the parties [and] cannot be revoked, amended or
We adopt the findings and note the insights thus expressed. modified by the Second Party without the consent of the First Party."

We must, therefore, highlight the following reasons why the findings and insights As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee arrangement. Indeed, a
should be sustained. contingent fee arrangement is a contract in writing in which the fee, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the
To determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees, the following factors as success in the effort to enforce or defend a supposed right. 15 The amount of the
enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility may serve as a guide, contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be
to wit: (a) the time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; (b) the paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher
novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (c) the importance of the subject compensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer
matter; (d) the skill demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a may get nothing should the suit fail. Such arrangement is generally recognized as
result of acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for similar valid and binding in this jurisdiction but its terms must be reasonable.16 Canon 13 of
services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g) the the Canons of Professional Ethics states that "a contract for a contingent fee, when
amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case
service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i) the character of the including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject
employment, whether occasional or established; and j) the professional standing of to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness." A contract of this nature is
the lawyer. permitted because it redounds to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer
especially in cases where the client has a meritorious cause of action but has no means
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged Manifestation for with which to pay for the legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make
Information constituted the respondent's rendition of professional services for the a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation.
complainants. Although he did claim that the filing of the Manifestation for Oftentimes, such arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can
Information had prevented any intrusion on their property, thereby fulfilling his end seek redress for injuries sustained and have their rights vindicated. 17chanrobleslaw
of the contract,13 the worth of such minimal effort was exaggerated and
disproportionate when taken in the context of the attorney's fees being Lot No. 37925- Considering that a contingent fee arrangement is susceptible to abuse, the courts
G with 300 square meters in area. The two-paged Manifestation for Information was not should closely scrutinize it to protect the client from unjust charges. The court looks
even the procedural precursor of the promised petition for certiorari. Moreover, he did in large measure at the reasonableness of the stipulated fee under the circumstances
not actually file the petition for certiorari as he had promised. And, lastly, he did of each case.18 Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly
nothing more after filing the Manifestation for Information. He certainly transgressed provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. -- An attorney shall be the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Cagayan de Oro City where the subject matter
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation was the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the complainant and
for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the respondent, said counsel resorted to another forum by filing this administrative case
controversy, the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the where his chance of oppressing and harassing respondent is far greater because when
attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as he filed said administrative case Atty. Roan Libarios then one of the Officers of the
to the proper compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its IBP National Chapter and member of the Board of Governors, representing Eastern
conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall Mindanao, was holding office at IBP, Ortigas Center, Pasig City as such, his
control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable officemate or law partner at Butuan City (sic). Unfortunately, for respondent, Atty.
or unreasonable. (Emphasis ours) Libarios eventually became the IBP National President;
All the foregoing circumstances established that the respondent was deceitful,
dishonest and unreasonable in his dealings with the complainants as his clients. He xxxx
thus violated his Lawyer's Oath, whereby he vowed, among others, to do no
falsehood, and not to consent to the doing of any falsehood, as well as not to delay 18. The statement by Commissioner Cachapero in his Report and Recommendation,
any man's cause for money or malice but to conduct himself as a lawyer according to 1st sentence, 2nd par., thereof that: "On October 10 & 11, 2008, a survey was conducted
the best of his knowledge and discretion "with all good fidelity as well to the courts as on Cadastral Lot No. 1351 situated at Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City in connection
to [his] clients. He also breached the following canons of the Code of Professional with the reconstitution of the lost title of the lot which was then pending before the
Responsibility, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, R-10, Cagayan de Oro City." is quite confusing and
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest immoral or deceitful designed to put down respondent probably at any cost and probably by an "unseen
conduct. but influential hands (sic)";20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The aforequoted allegations indicated that the respondent had readily attributed the
Canon 15 A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and filing of the administrative charge to the lawyer representing the complainants in the
transactions with his clients. suit against him to annul or rescind the MOA, as well as to "unseen but influential
hands" in the hierarchy of the IBP. The attribution was bereft of factual and legal
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of justifications, however, because he did not even attempt to establish it with
the trust and confidence reposed in him. satisfactory proof. We cannot but dismiss the attribution as malicious and unfounded
in view of the record establishing his serious ethical violations. He displayed an
Canon 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his unmitigated lack of professionalism by casting aspersions against his peers, and
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. exhibited a dangerous propensity to disparage others, which should move us to
consider his violations as aggravated.
Canon 20- A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Rule 20.4 A lawyer
shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to To be now considered, therefore, is the condign penalty of the respondent. A review
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. of precedents shows that the penalty of suspension, or even disbarment, has been
We have said time and again, and this we cannot overemphasize, that the Law is meted on similar violations and transgressions. In Santeco v. Avance,21 the respondent
neither a trade nor a craft but a profession whose basic ideal is to render public attorney was suspended for five years for abandoning the cause of her client without
service and to secure justice for those who seek its aid. If the Law has to remain an notice despite her having collected her legal fees. She also failed to account for the
honorable profession and has to attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks money of the client and constantly refused to submit herself to the proceedings of the
should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord IBP. In Lemoine v. Balon, Jr.,22 this Court disbarred the respondent attorney who did
continuing fidelity to such tenets and principles. 19 The respondent's behavior and not promptly account for the funds he had received for the benefit of his client, and
deceit demonstrated a preference for self-gain that transgressed his sworn duty of for his deceit in dealings with his client. In Overgaard v. Valdez,23 the respondent
fidelity, loyalty and devotion to his clients' cause. His betrayal of his clients' trust attorney was disbarred for assuring the complainant that his property involved in a
besmirched the honorable name of the Law Profession. These considerations justify civil case would be safeguarded, and then collecting the full amount of legal fees
suspending him from the practice of law. amounting to P900,000.00, only to desert the complainant after receiving the fees. The
respondent attorney had further failed to submit an answer as well as to attend the
Moreover, the respondent made the following allegations in his motion for proceedings before the IBP.
reconsideration filed with the IBP Board of Governors, to
wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Although the complainants appeared to have initially bound themselves to give a
9. It is quite disturbing that to cover up Atty. Palasan's negligence and reckless filing part of their land as the respondent's professional fees, they did so apparently
of Annulment and/or Rescission of Agreement titled Spouses Emilio Jacinto and because he had misrepresented to them the gravity and extent of their legal matter.
Alicia Jacinto vs. Atty. Emelie P. Bangot docketed as Civil Case No. 2008-302 before His misrepresentation was undeniably calculated to make them part with their
valuable asset in lieu of cash. He did not thereafter render any worthy professional
legal service in their favor. Verily, as the cliche goes, they did not get their money's
worth from him. Even if this charge was his first infraction, the grossness of his
violations of the Lawyer's Oath and the various relevant canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility quoted earlier absolutely warranted his suspension from the
practice of law for five years effective upon his receipt of this decision, with warning
of sterner sanctions should he hereafter commit a similar offense. This duration of
suspension was the penalty we prescribed in the recent case of Mercullo v.
Ramon24 where the respondent lawyer had deceived the complainants into parting
with the substantial sum of P350,000.00 as her attorney's fees but did not
subsequently perform her professional undertaking.

In addition, the respondent should not be entitled to receive any attorney's fees in
view of the worthlessness of the professional services he supposedly rendered. There
is no question, as ruled in Sanchez v. Aguilos,25cralawred that every attorney is entitled
to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the
special instance and request of his client; and that for as long as the attorney is in
good faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the client, he
should have a reasonable compensation for such services. Yet, equally without
question is that the attorney should not accept the engagement that is way above his
ability and competence to handle, for there will then be no basis for him to accept any
amount as attorney's fees; or that he should at least begin to perform the
contemplated task undertaken for the client to entitle him to be compensated on the
basis of quantum meruit.26chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, this Court FINDS and HOLDS respondent ATTY. EMELIE P.

BANGOT, JR. guilty of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for five (5) years effective
upon notice of this decision, with warning that sterner sanctions will be meted on him
for a similar offense; and DECLARES that he is not entitled to recover any attorney's
fees from the complainants.

Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant; the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator.

The Office of the Court Administrator shall disseminate this decision to all courts of
the Philippines.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Sereno, C.J., on official business.

Carpio, (Acting Chief Justice), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., on leave.
 a levy on execution on the properties of Miramar Fish Company, Inc. prompting the
latter to question said levy on execution on the ground that it was not a party to the
labor case, and to file a case with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 76721, entitled
Miramar Fish Corp. v. Inocencio T. Bacatan, et al.

In the said case, the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on April 30,
2003, and eventually, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on July 11, 2003, restraining
A.C. No. 6674               June 30, 2009 and enjoining respondent from enforcing his Order for the levy on execution of the
properties owned by Miramar Fish Company.
ROBERT BERNHARD BUEHS, Complainant,
vs. During the pendency of the proceedings, Alvarez and Malukuh, represented by
ATTY. INOCENCIO T. BACATAN, Respondent. respondent as their counsel, filed a criminal complaint for violation of Article 41 of
the Labor Code against petitioner. Respondent, in his Indorsement5 dated June 26,
DECISION 2003, stated that he was acting as counsel for complainants in said case, who were the
same complainants in the labor case pending before him.
PERALTA, J.:
On November 3, 2004, without notice and hearing, respondent also issued an
Order6 directing the BID to place herein complainant in its Watchlist and to issue a
Before this Court is a petition for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Inocencio T.
Hold Departure Order. However, complainant was not given a copy of the said Hold
Bacatan filed on February 11, 2005 by complainant Robert Bernhard Buehs, charging Departure Order.
respondent with representation of conflicting interests and gross misconduct for
usurpation of authority.
In the present petition with administrative complaint against respondent,
complainant alleged that:
It appears that on July 19, 1993, Genaro Alvarez and Sergia Malukuh, two employees
of Mar Fishing Company, Inc., filed a labor case for illegal dismissal with prayer for
backwages and other damages against said company and/or complainant in the 1. Respondent clearly represented conflicting interests by acting as counsel
latter’s capacity as Executive Vice- President and Chief Operations Officer of Miramar for Alvarez and Malukuh in the criminal case they filed against herein
Fish Company, Inc., and former General Manager of Mar Fishing Co., Inc., and the complainant while the labor case filed by Alvarez and Malukuh against
Mar Fishing Workers Union National Federation of Labor (MFWU-NFL). complainant was still pending before him.

The case was docketed as NCMB RB IX Case No. VA-12-0045-879 entitled Genaro 2. Respondent usurped the judicial powers of the Regional Trial Court and
Alvarez and Sergia Malukuh v. Mar Fishing Company, Inc. and/or Robert Buehs and the higher judicial authorities by issuing a Hold Departure Order/Watchlist
Mar Fishing Workers Union NFL, and later assigned to respondent, who was then an Order without any notice or hearing.7
accredited Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Regional Office 9, On the other hand, in his Comment8 dated May 3, 2005, respondent asserted that it
Zamboanga City. was complainant who resorted to legal maneuvers to delay, if not evade, his
monetary obligations. Thus, the former was compelled to ask for an Order to place
Respondent rendered a Decision1 dated May 30, 1997 in favor of Alvarez and petitioner in the Watchlist of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), as the
Malukuh, ordering Mar Fishing Company, Inc. and MFWU-NFL to pay complainants latter had resigned from his position. He also claimed that it was erroneous to say
in said case their separation pay, backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages that the issue was still pending with the arbitrator at the stage of execution because as
and other benefits in the amount of ₱1,563,360.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of March 30, 1997, when he submitted the Decision, he was already in functus oficio.
(CA) modified said Decision by deleting the award of moral and exemplary He further stated that the phrase "counsel for complainants" printed under his name
damages.2 The Decision became final and executory when the Court denied was a misprint, and he could not be considered as one actively prosecuting the case.
complainant’s petition for review on certiorari and, subsequently, his motion for
reconsideration, in its Resolution3 dated April 4, 2001. Respondent, in turn, filed a Counter-Affidavit9 wherein he prayed that the petition
for disbarment against him be dismissed, and that the name of Atty. Dennis Pangan,
Upon motion of Alvarez and Malukuh, respondent issued a Writ of Execution4 on counsel for petitioner, be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He likewise alleged that
February 8, 2002 to enforce the Decision dated May 30, 1997. Respondent also issued
all the foregoing pleadings, including those filed through Atty. Pangan, were x x x finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
designed to unreasonably delay the judgment of the court. applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct for representing conflicting interest, gross ignorance of the law for
In its Resolution10 dated August 31, 2005, the Court referred the case to the Integrated issuing a hold-departure and watchlist order without authority, and likewise, for
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation within failure to update his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty.
ninety (90) days from receipt of the record. Inocencio T. Bacatan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2)
years.
On November 23, 2005, respondent filed an Addendum and/or Supplement to his
Comment11 dated October 23, 2005. He claimed that he did not violate the principle of In an Indorsement dated March 21, 2007, Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, Director for Bar
contradiction because, according to him, the labor case and criminal complaint were Discipline of the IBP, referred the administrative case to the Office of the Bar
not cognate to each other. Confidant (OBC).

On December 1, 2005, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed the parties to In a Resolution dated July 16, 2007, the Court required the parties to manifest within
appear in a mandatory conference on January 6, 2006.12 On the scheduled date, the thirty (30) days from notice whether they were willing to submit the case for decision
parties failed to appear and, thus, the mandatory conference was reset to February 3, on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.
2006.
On February 20, 2008, the counsel for complainant filed a Manifestation stating that
Upon submission of complainant’s exhibits and presentation of the witnesses, the IBP the complainant was submitting the case for decision on the basis of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, in an Order dated February 3, 2006, submitted the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.
case for resolution and directed the parties to file their respective position papers. Of
the parties, only complainant submitted his Position Paper13 on March 16, 2006 In a Resolution dated August 4, 2008, in view of respondent’s failure to file a
reiterating his earlier arguments. manifestation on whether he was willing to submit the case for decision on the basis
of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted, the case was then submitted for
In the Report and Recommendation of the IBP dated May 31, 2006, Commissioner resolution.
Lolita Quisumbing found respondent guilty of misconduct for representing the
complainants in the criminal case filed by the latter against the petitioner. She held Respondent claimed that when he indorsed the criminal complaint for the
that respondent, as accredited Voluntary Arbitrator of the NCMB, exhibited his bias complainants, he could already do so as counsel because he had already rendered his
and partiality towards the complainants when he endorsed the criminal complaint Decision in the illegal dismissal case.
and signed thereon as counsel for the complainants. She likewise found respondent
guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he issued a Hold Departure Order in Respondent is mistaken. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of
violation of Circular No. 39-97.14 the parties but continues until the case is terminated, or until the writ of execution has
been issued to enforce the judgment.15 The Indorsement was dated June 26, 2003, at
The Investigating Commissioner also discovered from the respondent’s Comment which time the decision had not yet been enforced, as evidenced by respondent’s
dated May 3, 2005 that the respondent’s community tax certificate and IBP Number issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution 16 dated December 28, 2004.
covered the year 2004, not the current year 2005, and concluded that respondent
failed to update his IBP membership and pay his professional tax receipt for the year Even assuming that he had already lost jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case, he
2005. remains liable for representing conflicting interests. Relevant provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility17 state:
In view of her findings, Commissioner Quisumbing recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, and thereafter, submitted her Rule 15.01 – A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon
Report and Recommendation to the Board of Governors of the IBP. as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or is
own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
In its Resolution dated November 18, 2006, the Board of Governors of the IBP
adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
Investigating Commissioner, stating thus: consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
In Samala v. Valencia,18 the Court held that a lawyer may not undertake to discharge Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from
conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the
rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste, which springs from Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members.1avvphi1
the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers
should not only keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also avoid the appearance Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. – Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of
of treachery and double-dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one
of justice. year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from
the Roll of Attorneys.
A conflict of interests also exists when the acceptance of a new relation will prevent
an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his Having established the administrative liabilities of respondent, the Court now
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance proceeds to determine the corresponding penalty.
thereof.19
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
In the present case, respondent was appointed as Voluntary Arbitrator for the parties disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
in the illegal dismissal case. He took on the duty to act as a disinterested person to deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office. 24 Gross misconduct has
hear the parties’ contentions and give judgment between them. 20 However, instead of been defined as any inexcusable, shameful or flagrantly unlawful conduct on the part
exhibiting neutrality and impartiality expected of an arbitrator, respondent indorsed of the person involved in the administration of justice, conduct that is prejudicial to
a criminal complaint to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City for the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. Such conduct is
possible criminal prosecution against herein complainant, and signed the said generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term,
Indorsement as counsel for complainants in the illegal dismissal case. The Court however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. 25
cannot accept the contention of respondent that the phrase "counsel for the
complainants," found in the Indorsement, was a mere misprint. For if it were so, he
In previous cases involving representation of conflicting interests, the Court has
could have easily crossed out the phrase or prepared another Indorsement deleting
sanctioned erring lawyers either by reprimand, or by suspension from the practice of
said phrase. His claim of misprint, therefore, is a last futile attempt based on the
law from six months to two years.26
clearly established evidence that he was acting in both capacities as counsel and
arbitrator at the same time, an act which was clearly reprehensible and violative of
the principle of conflict of interests. In the afore-cited case Tadlip v. Borres, Jr.,27 therein respondent lawyer and provincial
adjudicator found guilty of gross ignorance of the law was suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months.
Respondent likewise showed gross ignorance of the law when he issued a Hold
Departure Order requesting the BID to place petitioner in its Watchlist, completely
contravening Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which provides that said Orders In Santos, Jr. v. Llamas,28 where the respondent lawyer did not pay his IBP dues for
shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional eight years because he believed that as a senior citizen, he was exempt from paying
Trial Courts.21 Apropos is Tadlip v. Borres, Jr.,22 where therein respondent, lawyer the same, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year, or until
and provincial adjudicator, failed to apply the specific provisions of the 1994 New the respondent paid his dues.
Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Arbitration Board
(DARAB). The Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ruled that, In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the imposition of a
since respondent became part of the quasi-judicial system of the government, his case one (1) year suspension, while the IBP Board of Governors recommended a two (2)
may be likened to administrative cases of judges whose manner of deciding cases was year suspension. The Court, taking into account the recommendations of the
also subject of administrative cases. Investigating Commissioner and the Board of Governors of the IBP, deems it
appropriate to impose a penalty of two (2)- year suspension upon respondent, which
Lastly, as the Investigating Commissioner also discovered that respondent failed to is within the range of the penalty of six (6) months to two (2) years for offenses
update his IBP membership dues and pay his community tax certificate for the year similar to those committed by respondent Atty. Bacatan, as held in several cases.29
2004, he is likewise liable under Sections 9 and 10,23 Rule 139-A of the Rules Court,
which read: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Inocencio T. Bacatan is found GUILTY of gross
misconduct for representing conflicting interests, gross ignorance of the law for
Section 9. Membership dues. – Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such issuing an order without authority, and failure to update his membership dues to the
annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the IBP; and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, effective upon
receipt of this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar accused. After the hearing, complainant immediately went to respondent’s residence
acts will be dealt with more severely. and confronted him with his absence. 6 Respondent explained that he did not receive
formal notice of the hearing. 7 Complainant became belligerent and started accusing
SO ORDERED. him of jeopardizing the case by his absence. Respondent said that her suspicions were
based on rumors and intrigues fed to her by her relatives. 8 Complainant, however,
continued accusing him belligerently. She asked for the records of the case saying that
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA she could refer them to another lawyer. Stung by her words, respondent gave her the
records. 9

Complainant never returned the records nor did she see Respondent. On September
ANGELITA C. ORCINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSUE GASPAR, Respondent. 18, 1991, respondent filed before the trial court a "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 10
The motion did not bear the consent of complainant.

On October 23, 1991, the court issued an order directing respondent to secure
RESOLUTION
complainant’s consent to the motion "and his appearance as private prosecutor shall
continue until he has secured this consent." 11

PUNO, J.: Complainant refused to sign her conformity to respondent’s withdrawal. 12

Meanwhile, the hearings in the criminal case continued. Respondent did not appear
at the hearings nor did he contact complainant. Complainant was thus compelled to
On June 14, 1992, complainant Angelita C. Orcino filed with this Court a letter- engage the services of another lawyer. Hence, the letter-complaint.
complaint dated December 10, 1991 against respondent Atty. Josue Gaspar, her
former counsel. Complainant prayed that this Court impose disciplinary sanctions on We referred the letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission
respondent for abandoning his duties and for failing to return the legal fees she fully on Bar Discipline, for investigation, report and recommendation.
paid for his services.chanrobles.com:cralaw:nad
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the
The complaint arose from the following facts: Complainant engaged the services of attorney-client relation at any time with or without cause. 13 The right of an attorney
respondent to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several suspects to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
in the slaying of her husband. In consideration thereof, complainant bound herself to considerably restricted. 14 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that
pay respondent legal fees of P20,000.00 — P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
contract and the balance to be paid on or before the conclusion of the case. conclusion. 15 He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. 16 A
Complainant was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of respondent before the court lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from
and fiscal. This agreement was embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991. the client’s written consent or from a good cause. 17
1
Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
In accordance with the contract, complainant paid respondent the sum of P5,000.00
on February 25, 1991, 2 another P5,000.00 on March 31, 1991, 3 and P10,000.00 on May "Sec. 26. Change of attorneys — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or
21, 1991, 4 for a total of P20,000.00. special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also
retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his
Forthwith, respondent entered into his duties. He interviewed witnesses and client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing,
gathered evidence to build a case against the suspects. He drew up the necessary determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of
sworn statements and dutifully attended the preliminary investigation. The case was the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.
Ecija. 5
x       x       x"
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the bail hearings for the
accused although these hearings were postponed on motion of the accused’s counsel. A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding with the
Respondent however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August 1991. It was at written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse
this hearing that the court, over complainant’s objections, granted bail to all the 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 condition of the lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case effectively; (e)
whether he ought to be allowed to retire. The application for withdrawal must be when the client deliberately fails to pay the attorney’s fees agreed upon; (f) when the
based on a good cause. 18 lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; (g) other similar cases.

In the instant case, complainant did not give her written consent to respondent’s The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds mentioned. Neither can this
withdrawal. The court thus ordered respondent to secure this consent. Respondent be considered analogous to the grounds enumerated. As found by the Commission
allegedly informed the court that complainant had become hostile and refused to sign on Bar Discipline, this case arose from a simple misunderstanding between
his motion. 19 He, however, did not file an application with the court for it to complainant and Respondent. Complainant was upset by respondent’s absence at the
determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw. 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
Granting that respondent’s motion without complainant’s consent was an application for her to confront respondent with his absence. Her belligerence arose from her
for withdrawal with the court, we find that this reason is insufficient to justify his overzealousness, nothing more. Complainant’s words and actions may have hurt
withdrawal from the case. Respondent’s withdrawal was made on the ground that respondent’s feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words
"there no longer exist[ed] the . . . confidence" between them and that there had been were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment, complainant did not
"serious differences between them relating to the manner of private prosecution." 20 expressly terminate respondent’s services. She made this clear when she refused to
sign his "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel."cralaw virtua1aw library
Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in terminating his services, he,
however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in the cold unprotected. The
"CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. court. 21 Until his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel
of record who is expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests
Rule 22.01 — A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following of his client require. 22 He must still appear on the date of hearing 23 for the attorney-
cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library client relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record. 24

a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with Respondent expressly bound himself under the contract to bring the criminal case to
the matter he is handling; 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
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons the amount paid him. The peculiar circumstances of the case have rendered it
and rules; impossible for respondent and complainant to continue their relation under the
contract.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the
client; IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is admonished to exercise more prudence and
judiciousness in dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to return to complainant
d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to within fifteen (15) days from notice the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
carry out the employment effectively; representing a portion of his legal fees received from the latter with a warning that
failure on his part to do so will result in the imposition of stiffer disciplinary action.
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply
with the retainer agreement; SO ORDERED.

f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and Regalado and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

g) Other similar cases."cralaw virtua1aw library Mendoza, J., on official leave.

A lawyer may withdraw his services from his client only in the following instances:
(a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral conduct of his case; (b) when the
client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers and the lawyers
could not get along to the detriment of the case; (d) when the mental or physical