Case #53 Vivian Villanueva Vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales A. C. No. 7657, February 12, 2008 Carpio, J

Paleth Cases
Compiled by GM Salinas, 3rd Yr, LO1
Case #53
Vivian Villanueva vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales

A. C. No. 7657, February 12, 2008
Carpio, J
Nature of The Case:
This is a complaint Vivian Villanueva (complainant) filed against Atty.

Cornelius M. Gonzales (respondent) for failure to render legal services and
failure to return the money, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), and other
documents he received from complainant.
Facts:
Sometime in 2000, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the

purpose of transferring the title over a piece of property located in Talisay,
Cebu. Complainant, as mortgagee, wanted to transfer the title to her name
because the mortgagor failed to redeem the property within the redemption
period and the sheriff had already issued a sheriff's definite deed of sale in
complainant's favor. Complainant gave respondent P8,000 as acceptance
fee, the property's TCT, and other pertinent documents.
After receiving the money, TCT, and other documents, respondent began to
avoid complainant. Whenever complainant went to respondent's office at BPI
Building, Escario St., Cebu City, respondent's secretary would tell her that
respondent could not be disturbed because he was either sleeping or doing
something important.
In a letter dated 2 July 2003, complainant told respondent that she had lost
her trust and confidence in him and asked him to return the P8,000, TCT, and
other documents. Respondent refused to return the money, TCT, and other
documents. After some time and after complainant's daughter confronted him,
respondent finally returned the money. However, until now, respondent has
not returned the TCT and other documents. Thus, complainant filed a
complaint5 dated 10 September 2003 against respondent before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) - 1. Respondent did not perform legal
services, 2. Did not inform client of the status of the case, 3. Returned
acceptance fee w/o any explanation, 4. Respondent was indifferent.
Respondent was directed to answer, but he did not do so. Neither did he
attend the mandatory hearings.
In an Order dated 7 October 2003, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A.

Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint.
Respondent did not submit an answer. In an Order dated 21 April 2004, IBP
Commissioner for Bar Discipline Rebecca Villanueva-Maala ordered
respondent to submit his answer to the complaint, and set the mandatory
conference on 2 June 2004. Respondent did not submit an answer or attend
the mandatory conference. The Commission on Bar Discipline considered the
case submitted for resolution.
The IBP's Report and Recommendations
In a Report dated 27 October 2006, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline

Caesar R. Dulay (Commissioner Dulay) found respondent guilty of
misconduct and negligent behavior: (1) he failed to perform any legal service
to his client, (2) he did not inform his client about the status of the case, (3) he
returned the P8,000 acceptance fee without any explanation, and (4) he was
indifferent. Commissioner Dulay found that respondent violated Canons 16
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for one year.
In a Resolution dated 31 May 2007, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board)

adopted and approved the Report dated 27 October 2006 with modification.
The IBP Board suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months
and ordered him to return to complainant the P2,000, TCT, and the other
documents.
As provided in Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the IBP Board
forwarded the instant case to the Court for final action.
The Court’s Ruling:
The Court sustains the findings and recommendations of the IBP with
modification. Respondent violated Canons 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.01,
16.03, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent Refused to Account for

and Return His Client's Money
Canon 16 states that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client that
may come into his possession. Rule 16.01 of the Code states that a lawyer
shall account for all money received from the client. Rule 16.03 of the Code
states that a lawyer shall deliver the funds of his client when due or upon
demand.
Respondent Refuses to Return

His Client's TCT and Other Documents
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall

hold in trust all properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.03 of the Code states that a lawyer shall deliver the property of his
client when due or upon demand.
Respondent Failed to Serve His Client
with Fidelity, Competence, and Diligence
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer

owes fidelity to the cause of his client. Canon 18 of the Code states that
"[a] lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence." Rule 18.03
of the Code states that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
Respondent Did Not Keep His Client Informed

of the Status of Her Case and Refused to Respond
to Her Requests for Information
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "[a] lawyer

shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information."
Respondent Did Not File an Answer or

Attend the Mandatory Hearing Before the IBP
Respondent's repeated failure to file an answer to the complaint and to

appear at the 2 June 2004 mandatory conference aggravate his misconduct.
These demonstrate his high degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect for
the IBP and its proceedings. His attitude stains the nobility of the legal
profession.
Lawyers are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the

Code of Professional Responsibility because an attorney-client relationship is
highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. Those
who violate the Code must be disciplined. Respondent failed to live up to
these standards.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Cornelius M.

Gonzales GUILTY of violating Canons 16, 17, and 18, and Rules 16.01,
16.03, 18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years
effective upon finality of this Decision, ORDERS him to RETURN the TCT and
all other documents to complainant within 15 days from notice of this
Decision, and WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar offense,
including the failure to return the TCT and all other documents as required
herein, shall be dealt with more severely.
#54 Cesar Talento and Modesto Talento vs Atty Agustin Paneda
A.C. No. 7433, February 23, 2009
Puno,J
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint filed by mother and son Modesta

Herrera Talento and Cesar Talento charging Atty. Agustin F. Paneda of
violation of his oath as a lawyer and neglect of duty. Atty. Paneda failed to
appear in a pre-trial conference so they were barred in presenting their
evidence and he also failed to file the required Appeal Brief which led to the
dismissal of his clients’ appeal before the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in
handling petitioners’ case both on trial in the RTC and on appeal in the CA
which led to its dismissal without affording petitioners the opportunity to
present their evidence.
Held:
Consideration of the records of the instant case, the Court agrees with the
IBP in its findings and conclusion that respondent’s documented acts fall
extremely short of the standard of professional duty that all lawyers are
required to faithfully adhere to.
The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS

CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
The facts of this case illustrate respondent’s dismal performance of that

responsibility, which in its totality could amount to a reprehensible
abandonment of his clients’ cause.
Atty Paneda is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a year.
#55
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA

A. C. No. 7024, 577 SCRA 93, January 30, 2009
BRION,J:
.
This is a complaint for disbarment.
Facts:
The complainant alleged that she retained the services of the respondent as
her counsel incase filed against her and her co-defendants for the collection
of a sum of money amounting toP1.3 Million. Her defense was that it was the
plaintiff who actually owed her P800, 000.00. Sheclaimed that she had the
evidence to prove this defense at the trial and that respondent agreed
tohandle the case and duly entered his appearance as counsel after securing
his acceptance fee.However, after filing the Answer to the Complaint, the
respondent failed to fully inform her offurther developments in the case. She
only heard about the case when there was already a decisionagainst her and
her co-defendants. She even belatedly learned that the respondent had
sought hisdischarge as counsel without her knowledge and consent. After the
court denied the respondent'smotion to withdraw from the case, the
complainant claimed that the respondent represented herinterests in a half-
hearted manner, resulting in the grant of the plaintiff's motion for judgment
onthe pleadings. Allegedly, the respondent failed to properly oppose the
motion and she wasthereafter deprived of the chance to present her evidence.
Execution of the court's decisionfollowed, resulting in the sale of her house
and lot at public auction despite her efforts to reversethe judgment with the
help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a third party to whom her property
hadbeen mortgaged sued her.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that “"a lawyer shall serve his
client with competence and diligence." First, the respondent failed to contact
his client about the developments of the case.Second, assuming the non-
payment of his legal services to be true, such failure should not be areason
not to inform the client of an important development, or worse, to withhold
vitalinformation from her. Third, the respondent failed to provide details on the
developments that ledto the adverse rulings on the interrogatories/admissions
and the judgment on the pleadings.However, the Supreme Court cannot also
disbar the respondent as the complainant demands inlight of the
complainant's own contributory faults. The complainant's failing in this regard
is herfailure to inform her counsel of her change of business address, a
serious lapse but one that aresourceful counsel could have easily handled.
Adjudication:
Atty. Gerardo F. Lara is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months.

Case #53 Vivian Villanueva Vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales A. C. No. 7657, February 12, 2008 Carpio, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #53 Vivian Villanueva Vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales A. C. No. 7657, February 12, 2008 Carpio, J

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #53 Vivian Villanueva Vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales A. C. No. 7657, February 12, 2008 Carpio, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paleth Cases

Compiled by GM Salinas, 3rd Yr, LO1

Vivian Villanueva vs Atty Cornelius Gonzales

Nature of The Case:

This is a complaint Vivian Villanueva (complainant) filed against Atty.

Sometime in 2000, complainant engaged the services of respondent for the

In an Order dated 7 October 2003, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A.

The IBP's Report and Recommendations

In a Report dated 27 October 2006, IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline

In a Resolution dated 31 May 2007, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board)

The Court’s Ruling:

Respondent Refused to Account for

Respondent Refuses to Return

Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer

Respondent Did Not Keep His Client Informed

Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "[a] lawyer

Respondent Did Not File an Answer or

Respondent's repeated failure to file an answer to the complaint and to

Lawyers are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Cornelius M.

This is an administrative complaint filed by mother and son Modesta

The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

The facts of this case illustrate respondent’s dismal performance of that

OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARA

You might also like