Gabucan v.

Narido

1
In a Complaint filed by Jose Antonio G. Gabucan (complainant) against
Atty. Florencio A. Narido, Jr. (Atty. Narido, Jr.), complainant charges Atty.
2 3
Narido, Jr. for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 18.04, Canon 18 and
4
Rule 20.04, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

FACTS: Complainant alleged that he is the owner of a parcel of land located at

Catarman, Camiguin. He hired the services of Atty. Narido, Jr. to initiate an
ejectment case before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catarman.

7
In 2004, Atty. Narido, Jr. entered into a Contract of Lease with the
complainant over a property that would be the subject of the unlawful
detainer case. Thereafter, Atty. Narido, Jr. took possession of the litigated
property and introduced improvements by building a shanty made up of
mixed materials.

In 2008, complainant, through Atty. Narido, Jr. filed a case for unlawful
detainer against Ebalang over the subject property covered by OCT No. 386.

10
On April 5, 2005, the MCTC rendered a Decision in favor of the
complainant and ordered the ejectment of Ebalang.

12
Ebalang, however, filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals
13
(CA). Pending review by the CA, Atty. Narido, Jr. failed to communicate to
complainant, to at least apprise or report the status of the case

Because of the inaction of Atty. Narido, Jr., complainant felt aggrieved such
that he was forced to hire the services of another lawyer to continue
prosecuting the remanded case before the MCTC. Atty. Narido, Jr. did not
object to the termination of his services

2011, omplainant amicably settled the attorney's fees of Atty. Narido, Jr.,
Atty. Narido, Jr. further agreed to voluntarily relinquish, abandon, or waive
all and whatever interest he had

Eventually, the MCTC rendered a decision in favor of complainant.

The complainant, through his representative Evangelista Z. Almonia
(Almonia), sought to pay the remaining P35,000.00 to Atty. Narido, Jr.
However, the latter refused to accept the same, unless an additional amount
of P10,000.00 would be paid, as payment for the materials of his
improvements that were demolished.

Atty. Narido, Jr., by coercion and intimidation, re-entered the property and
had his men build a structure thereon purposely to obstruct and to prevent
the passage of the dump trucks of Guani (lessee of complainant)

In November 8, 2011, complainant filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD).

Respondent contention: Atty. Narido, Jr. claimed that of all the hearings
he attended for the complainant's case, complainant only paid his
appearance fee once. Even with the disregard of complainant's obligation, he
did not abandon the case until a favorable decision was issued by the MCTC.
When Ebalang appealed the decision of the MCTC, Atty. Narido, Jr. informed
Almonia to advise the complainant that a separate professional fee for the
appeal has to be agreed upon. Atty. Narido, Jr., however, claimed that he
never heard from the complainant or Almonia despite repeated reminders

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline: Suspended Atty. Narido for 2 years violated Rule 18.04
of the CPR and his Lawyer's Oath.

IBP Board of Governors: imposing the penalty of SUSPENSION from the

practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

Issue

Whether Atty. Narido, Jr., is guilty of violating the CPR and his Lawyer's
Oath, necessitating his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

RULING: In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is the

primary objective. The Court is called upon to determine whether a lawyer is
still fit to be allowed the privileges of the practice of law

Atty. Narido Jr. violated Rule 18.04 of the CPR by failing to inform the complainant of the
status of the case.

Rule 18.04 of the CPR 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."

lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of

his case is crucial in maintaining the client's confidence. The lawyer needs to
inform his client, timely and adequately, important updates and status
affecting the client's case. He should not leave his client in the dark as how
to he is defending the client's interes

In this case, Atty. Narido, Jr. claims that he has constantly updated
complainant through his representative Almonia. However, Atty. Narido, Jr.
did not present any document establishing such fact. It is logical that Atty.
Narido, Jr. should have at least a document formally informing the
complainant of the status of the case.

--

Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.

he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from
his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that
his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that
is authorized by the law of the land

Here, Atty. Narido, Jr. admitted that he did not file any comment or
memorandum before the CA, since he was already confident that it was no
longer necessary because the CA will affirm the findings of the MCTC and the
RTC. This is arrogance on the part of Atty. Narido, Jr. He has no way of
knowing that the CA will indeed rule in favor of his client. In fact, the CA
reversed the rulings of the MCTC and the RTC.

6 months suspension of Atty Narido is reasonable.

A contingent fee contract is valid and binding but the same must be reasonable and just under
the circumstances.

A contingency fee agreement has been generally rendered as valid and

binding in this jurisdiction. It is a contract in writing in which the fee,
generally a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in an action, is made
to depend upon the success of the case.

In this case, Atty. Narido, Jr. claims that the contingency fee agreement
between him and the complainant is only limited at the MCTC level and a
separate contingency fee is required in the appeal before the RTC and
another separate contingency fee is required in the appeal before the CA. Be
it noted that the amount of contingency fee in the instant case is 35% of the
property or its value. A separate contingency fee for the appeal before the
RTC and another separate contingency fee for the appeal before the CA is
clearly unreasonable, unjustified and unconscionable. It should be stated
that this is a mere ejectment case and requiring a 35% contingency fee of
the property or its value and limiting the same only in the MCTC case is

Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,

Atty. Narido, Jr. violated the prohibition provided under Article 1646 of the Civil Code.

A lawyer's relationship to his client demands a highly fiduciary relationship.

It requires a high standard of conduct and demands utmost fidelity, candor,
fairness and good faith

45
In relation to Article 1491 of the Civil Code, explicitly provides that
lawyers are prohibited from leasing, either in person or through an agent,
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation to which they
46
may take part by virtue of their profession. The prohibition, which rests on
considerations of public policy and interests is intended to curtail any undue
influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and
confidential relationship with him.

While Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which

states that [t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in the
subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting, is no longer
reproduced in the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
such proscription still applies considering that Canon 1 of the CPR is
clear in requiring that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process
and Rule 13 8, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to take an oath to "obey
the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein

Atty. Narido, Jr. cannot be faulted from demanding P10,000.00 for his buried materials and
preventing the dump trucks of Guani from entering the leased premises as he was only
protecting his interest over his materials.

2. Canilo v. Angeles

For the Court's resolution are disbarment complaints filed against Atty. Sergio F.
Angeles (respondent)

Canillo (Canillo) charged respondent with gross negligence for failing to comply with the
Supreme Court's directive to file a reply which resulted in the dismissal of the petition for
review in G.R. No. 153138 Canillo demanded to speak with respondent. Canillo raised
the matter, but respondent angrily parried the question regarding the denial of the
Canillo petition and left without giving them any explanation as to what happened

In A.C. No. 9900, Dr.

Potenciano R. Malvar (Dr. Malvar) charged respondent of
representing conflicting interests in various civil cases involving a common parcel of
[2]
land.

Dr. Malvar and respondent became acquainted in 1994, and thereafter became close
[12]
friends. From 1994 to 2004, respondent handled around 24 civil and criminal cases
[13]
for Dr. Malvar. Due to their close relations, respondent introduced Dr. Malvar to
Marcelino Lopez (Marcelino), another client and also a business associate. Marcelino
co-owned, with his siblings, the land adjacent to the property owned by Dr. Malvar. For
business reasons, Dr. Malvar became interested in acquiring portions of the property
owned by the Lopezes.

In A.C. Nos. 9901 and 9902, the complainants charged respondent for representing
[3]
conflicting interests and entering into a champertous contract. In A.C. Nos. 9903-
9905, Dr. Malvar charged respondent for committing fraudulent and deceitful acts, gross
misconduct, malpractice, and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for failing
to account for various sums of money allegedly given to the respondent Confident of
favorable rulings in the cases handled by respondent, Dr. Malvar entered into a joint
[18]
venture agreement with Marcelino, as attorney-in-fact of his co-owners, where the
latter granted Dr. Malvar the exclusive right to negotiate for the financing, development,
and construction on part of the litigated property. Subsequently, he started to acquire,
[19] [20]
by way of conditional and absolute sales, portions thereof. Respondent
facilitated the execution of the joint venture agreements and deeds of conditional sale

Angelina engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of securing a parcel of
land in Antipolo. The contract for professional services provided that respondent will pay
for and advance all costs and expenses, including taxes, necessary to secure the
Torrens certificate of title for the land. In exchange, Angelina agreed to transfer
ownership over two hectares of land to respondent.
Respondent, together with Marcelino, facilitated Dr. Malvar's conditional purchase of a
5,000-square meter property in Tandang Sora, Quezon City from one Manuel Silvestre
Bernardo (Bernardo), another client of respondent, with an agreed price of P650.00 per
square meter. The sale was conditioned upon a favorable ruling in Civil Case No. 12645
[31]
which was then pending before the RTC of Quezon City. The contract was not
signed by Bernardo. On March 13, 1996, two days after the execution of the agreement,
Dr. Malvar issued a check amounting to P500,000.00, allegedly in connection with the
[32]
transaction, which was encashed by respondent. Dr. Malvar issued three other
checks amounting to P250,000.00, P333,333.00, and P150,000.00 as payment for the
Tandang Sora property

[47]
IBP: In the consolidated Explanation/Recommendation, Integrated Bar of Philippines
(IBP) Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes found respondent guilty of the
following:

(1) Failing to serve his client, Canillo, with competence and diligence when respondent failed to
file a reply as directed by the Supreme Court, which ultimately led to the denial of his client's
petition

. (2)  Representing conflicting interests for filing a case, in his own capacity and on behalf of
the Lopezes, against Dr. Malvar despite respondent acting as counsel for Dr. Malvar in
numerous cases and playing an instrumental role in the dealings between Dr. Malvar and
[49]
the Lopezes;

[50]
. (3)  Entering into a champertous contract with Angelina;

. (4)  Breach of trust and fraud for his failure to account for the money given by Dr. Malvar in
[51]
connection with the Tandang Sora property;

[52]
. (5)  Fraud by entering into a deed of conditional sale without proper authority; and

. (6)  Gross dishonesty and misconduct for failure to account for and return the amount
[53]
advanced by Dr. Malvar as payment of docket fees.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent lawyer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

COURT: We concur with the findings of the IBP that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility on numerous occasions. Substantial evidence exists to
[58]
support the allegations of the complainants. Respondent's propensity in violating his
duties as a lawyer merits the penalty of disbarment.
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

lawyer's failure to file a brief for his client, despite notice, amounts to inexcusable
negligence. A lawyer is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and
with utmost diligence. Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. A lawyer who discharges his duties with diligence not only protects the interest of
his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain
the respect of the community to the legal profession

AC 990: 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. What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain
inviolate the client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously
affect the client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented him

A champertous contract is defined as a contract between a stranger and a party to a

lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party's claim in consideration of receiving part
or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment. It is a bargain by a stranger with
a party to a suit, by which such third person undertakes to carry on the litigation at his
own cost and risk, in consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the proceeds or
subject sought to be recovered. In the legal profession, an agreement whereby the
attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client's rights is
champertous. Such agreements are against public policy.

Respondent's defenses do not absolve him of his duty under Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility to account for all money or property collected or received for
or from his client. Respondent's only means of ensuring accountability was by issuing
and keeping

[75]
receipts. Regrettably, he failed to live up to this basic professional responsibility.
Even if his defense in connection with the sum involving P1,233,333.00 was true, i.e.,
the money was for some other transaction, he failed to render an accounting of the sum
so received. The same is also true for the sum amounting to P435,000.00. Because of
respondent's failure to account for the money he received, Dr. Malvar had to request for
a certification from the Clerk of Court to confirm the amount of docket fees.
Notwithstanding the admission of Col. Manalo that he used the balance of P390,000.00
for administrative expense

Mapalad v. Echanez
his administrative case arose from a verified Complaint for disbarment dated
October 16, 2009 filed by complainant Virgilio Mapalad, Sr. against
respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez before the Integrated Bar ofthe
1
Philippines (IBP).

Complainant alleged that in an action for Recovery of Possession and

Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction docketed as Civil
Case No. 1635-1-784 before the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City,
Isabela, complainant was one of the plaintiffs while respondent was the
defendants' counsel therein. As the said case was decided in favor of the
plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 2009, in which
respondent indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Compliance No. II-0014038 without indicating the date of issue thereof

On appeal, respondent filed the appellants' brief, again only indicating his
MCLE Compliance Number

In another case docketed as Special Civil Action No. 3573, respondent, for
the same clients, filed a Petition for Injunction wherein he once again only
4
indicated his MCLE Compliance Number. Respondent also filed a Motion for
Leave of Court dated July 13, 2009 in the said special civil action, indicating
his MCLE Compliance Number without the date of issue.

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent
had no MCLE compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification
dated September 30, 2009, stating that respondent had not yet complied
with his MCLE requirements for the First Compliance Period

Hence, this complaint. Complainant argues that respondent's act of

deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels
concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements
when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct.

Respondents failed to comply in filing a comment.

On August 14, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP- CBD)
13
issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing. On the date of the
hearing, however, none of the parties appeared despite due notice

IBP: After a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence submitted by the

complainant, it is recommended that ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ be
DISBARRED

ISSUE: Shouldrespondent be administratively

disciplined based on the allegations in the
complaint and evidence on record?
RULING: YES. F econd. Despite such non-
compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a
false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings
22
before the trial courts. In indicating patently
false information in pleadings filed before the
courts of law, not only once but four times, as
per records, the respondent acted in manifest
bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing,
he indeed misled the courts, litigants – his own
clients included – professional colleagues, and
all others who may have relied on such
pleadings containing false information.
First. It was clearly established that respondent
20
violated Bar Matter No. 850 . No less than the
MCLE Office had issued a certification stating
that respondent had not complied with the first
2
and second compliance period of the MCLE.
[lawyer’s oath] In
using a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings, respondent also put his
own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings
can be fatal to the client's cause as pleadings
with such false information produce no legal
25
effect. In so doing, respondent violated his
26
duty to his clients. Canons 17 and 18 of the
CPR provide
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him.
CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Third. The respondent also repeatedly failed to
obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP-CBD,
and also this Court despite due notice. In the
special civil action above-cited, the trial court
directed the respondent to file a comment on a
motion which raised in issue respondent's use of
a false MCLE compliance number in his
27
pleadings but he did not file any. This Court
also directed respondent to file a comment on
the instant complaint but he failed to do so
In a decision dated April 11, 2013 by this Court
en banc, respondent was found guilty of
engaging in notarial practice without a notarial
commission, and was thus suspended from the
practice of law for two years with the warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act in
the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
considering respondent's act of using a false
35
MCLE compliance number in his pleadings , his
36
repeated failure to obey legal orders , and the
fact that he had already been sanctioned twice
37
by this Court on separate cases , We are
constrained to affirm the IBP Board of
Governors' Resolution No. XXI-2014-685,
recommending his disbarment to prevent him
from further engaging in legal practice
As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain legal proficiency and a
high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair
40
dealing. Also, of all classes and professions,
the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the
41
laws. He is their sworn servant