Cantiller Vs Potenciano, A.M No. 3195 (Legal Ethics)

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. Case No. 3195. December 18, 1989
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. HUMBERTO V. POTENCIANO, respondent.
Eduardo Cabreros, Jr. for complainant.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
Statement of the Case:
Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V. Potenciano, a
practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll No. 21862. He is
charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct,
malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
Facts:
Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in an action
for ejectment and another action for reconveyance with damages and was then
pending before the RTC, but this time the plaintiff. When the two cases were
concluded, Peregrina came out the losing party. Desperate and at a loss on what to
do, they consulted a certain Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn,
introduced them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the parties
"impliedly agreed" that respondent would handle their case. Forthwith, a petition
was prepared by respondent to forestall the execution of the order to vacate in Civil
Case. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a
"[h]astily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for
annulment of judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent promised her that the
necessary restraining order would be secured if only because the judge who would
hear the matter was his close friend. However, when the case was raffled and
assigned to Branch 153, the presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as
counsel in the case on the ground of their friendship.
Respondent went to the house of complainant and asked her to be ready with
P 2,000.00 to be given to another judge who will issue the restraining order in the
ejectment case. Complainant and her sister were only able to raise the amount of
one thousand pesos which they immediately gave to respondent. Later respondent
informed the complainant and her sister that he could not locate the judge who
would issue the restraining order. The parties, then, instead went to the Max's
Restaurant where respondent ordered some food - including two plastic bags of food
allegedly to be given to the judge who would issue the restraining order. At this
juncture, respondent asked for the remaining balance of the P 2,000.00 which he
earlier demanded. Complainant gave her last money - a $ 10.00 bill.
Sometime after the filing of case, respondent informed complainant and
Peregrina that there was a need to file another case with the RTC to enable them to
retain possession of the apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant
to prepare the amount of P 10,000.00 allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's
Office of Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another one thousand pesos
P 1,000.00 to cover the expenses of the suit. Respondent stressed to the
complainant the need and urgency of filing the new complaint.
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case, respondent, contrary
to his promise that he would secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as
counsel for complainant. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary injunction was
obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in Civil Case was eventually
enforced and executed.
Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that there was
really no need to make a deposit of P 10,000.00 relative to Civil Case. After further
inquiry, she found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Thus,
complainant sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the return of the total
amount which the former earlier gave to the latter. However, this letter was never
answered and the money was never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this
administrative complaint against herein respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's cause and interests?
Ruling:
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due
diligence in protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil Case to withdraw
his appearance as counsel by reason of their friendship. Despite such prior
knowledge, respondent took no steps to find a replacement nor did he inform
complainant of this fact.
Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge that he would be
asked to withdraw, the record is quite clear that four (4) days prior to the hearing of
the preliminary injunction in Civil Case respondent already filed a motion therein
withdrawing as complainant's counsel. Despite this void, respondent failed to find a

replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead.
This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases appear to be poorly
prepared and written. Having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels
for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully
prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. The
little time involved is no excuse. Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty
was to file the best pleading within his capability. Apparently respondent was more
interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a hopeless
situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and
talked about the need to "buy" the restraining order in the other. Worse still he got P
10,000.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he
pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious.
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost
dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he
owes his client. More so in this case, where by reason of his gross negligence
complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases.
The filing of Civil Case the same day that he had already filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel for complainant in Civil Case reveals his lack of good faith as
an advocate. He also failed to appear for the complainant in said case. It was all a
show to get more money from her. This adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law. When confronted with this evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he
did not physically appear for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the
pleadings.
His services were engaged by complainant hoping that the property subject
of the ejectment proceeding would be returned to her. In fact, it was respondent
who persuaded complainant that the filing of these two cases simultaneously were
the means by which this objective can be achieved. His duty was not only to
prepare the pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the
cases. This he failed to do.
His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil Case when
he already knew that he could no longer physically handle the same is an act of
deception of his client. It shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office as a member of
the Philippine bar.
This Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges
against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an
indefinite period

Cantiller Vs Potenciano, A.M No. 3195 (Legal Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cantiller Vs Potenciano, A.M No. 3195 (Legal Ethics)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Cantiller Vs Potenciano, A.M No. 3195 (Legal Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the respondent charged with?

What did the respondent do that showed lack of diligence in protecting his client's interests?

Republic of the Philippines

withdrawing as complainant's counsel. Despite this void, respondent failed to find a

You might also like