Ortiz Mark John G.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

1.RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent

The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal.
However, professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary
restrictions and qualifications.48 The filing of cases by respondent against the adverse parties
and their counsels, as correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, manifests his
malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their client's
interest.49 Even assuming arguendo that such acts were done without malice, it showed
respondent's gross indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession.

2. NESTOR PEREZ , Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE, Respondent.

There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues
for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This
rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.3

3. MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate
the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the
fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without
reasonable cause. A lawyer’s right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises
only from the client’s written consent or from a good cause.

4. PO1 CELSO TABOBO III y EBID, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious
that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be reopened
to give to the client another chance to present his case. The legitimate interests of the
petitioner, particularly the right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC as the superior
tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the altar of technicalities.
5. NORMA C. GAMARO and JOSEPHINE G. UMALI, Petitioners
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The
client must intend the communication to be confidential. A confidential communication refers
to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no
third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or
the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.

6. ARIEL G. PALACIOS, for and in behalf of the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits
System (AFP-RSBS), Complaint,
vs.
ATTY. BIENVENIDO BRAULIO M. AMORA, JR., Respondent

The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be imbued with the highest level
of trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest require that this be so. Part of the
lawyer's duty to his client is to avoid representing conflicting interests. He is duty bound to
decline professional employment, no matter how attractive the fee offered maybe, if its
acceptance involves a violation of the proscription against conflict of interest, or any of the
rules of professional conduct.

7. CHERYLE. VASCO-TAMARAY, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS, Respondent.

Pretending to be counsel for a party in a case and using a forged signature in a pleading merit
the penalty of disbarment.

8. SILVESTRA MEDINA and SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would be
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. It
also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is
related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he
appeared for the former client. This rule applies regardless of the degree of adverse interests.

9.ARTHUR O. MONARES, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. LEVI P. MUÑOZ, Respondent.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there
is conflict of interest if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney
from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

10. SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, Respondent.

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected
of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his
client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the
courts and society.13 His workload does not justify neglect in handling one’s case because it is
settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.

11. NANETTE B. SISON, represented by DELIA B. SARABIA, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. SHERDALE M. VALDEZ, Respondent

The highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship imposes on a lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. 43 Money
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the filing and processing of a case, if
not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand.44 His failure to return gives rise to a
presumption that he has appropriated it for his own use, and the conversion of funds entrusted
to him constitutes a gross violation of his professional obligation under Canon 16 of the CPR.

12. AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN, Respondent.

Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself
towards the objective fulfillment of his responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the
correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well as to ensure
the smooth turn-over of the case to another lawyer.
13. WILSON CHUA, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent

A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional
capacity. Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client, showing that he spent the money for
the purpose intended.

14. BSA TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, COMPLAINANT,

VS. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO B. REYES II, RESPONDENT.

The Court laid down the tests to determine if a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting
interests between and among his clients. One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that
duty. Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against
a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.

15.NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER,

VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE D. AZARRAGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE
OF BRANCH 37, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, AND ATTY. REX C. MUZONES,
RESPONDENTS.

Client has an undoubted right to settle a suit without the intervention of his lawyer, for he is
generally conceded to have the exclusive control over the subject-matter of the litigation and
may, at any time before judgment, if acting in good faith, compromise, settle, and adjust his
cause of action out of court without his attorney's intervention, knowledge, or consent, even
though he has agreed with his attorney not to do so. Hence, a claim for attorney's fees does not
void the compromise agreement and is no obstacle to a court approval.

16. ETHELEN W. SAN JUAN, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent

When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to
render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular
purpose. And if he or she does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must
immediately return the money to the client.

17. NESTOR B. FIGUERAS and BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR., Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, Respondent.

An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and with utmost
diligence.1âwphi1 (Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 159) A failure to file brief for his
client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.
18. AURORA H. CABAUATAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent.

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in
protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected
of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his
client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the
courts and society.

19. JOSE FRANCISCO T. BAENS, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JONATHAN T. SEMPIO, Respondent.

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For his
part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to
devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.16 Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in
which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.

20. MYRNA OJALES, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. OBDULIO GUY D. VILLAHERMOSA III, Respondent

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his
possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property.1âwphi1 He is to keep the funds of his
client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a
lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds
and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his
client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The
lawyer's failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that
he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him.