Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Macalalad was negligent with the non-filing of the
petition
HELD: YES, he was. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and
is sternly warned. He is also ordered to return 50,000 pesos with a 12%
interest per annum.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda is guilty of gross negligence and gross
misconduct in handling the case.
HELD: YES, he is. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for 6
months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florido failed to uphold the standards expected of
him as a lawyer
HELD: YES, he did. He is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 4
CASE NO. 49 the agreement was not reduced into writing because the parties believed each
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA V. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO other based on mutual trust.
AC No. 6281, September 26, 2011 He further invoked the principle of quantum meruit.
Peralta, J. The IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Carpio be suspended from the
FACTS: practice of law for 6 months for unjustly withholding from Miranda the
Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land in Las owners duplicate of OCT. It was approved and adopted by the IBP board of
PInas. He initiated a Land Registration Commission Case for the registration of governors
the aforesaid property. During the course proceedings, Miranda engaged the ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Carpio is guilty of unjustly withholding the OCT
services of Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his original counsel, HELD: YES. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. He is
Atty. Marquez, figured in a vehicular accident. ordered to return to Miranda the owners duplicate of OCT. He is warned that
They agreed for payment of 20,000 pesos as acceptance fee and 2000 a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
pesos as appearance fee. Miranda paid Atty. Carpio the amounts due him, Atty. Carpios claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally
evidenced by the receipts duly signed by the latter. During the last hearing of give him the right to retain the property of his client until he receives what is
the case, Atty. Carpio demanded an additional amount of 10,000 pesos for the allegedly due him is INVALID. Section 37, Rule 138 elucidates on Attorneys
preparation of memorandum plus 20% of the total area of the subject Retaining Lien. The elements are:
property as additional fees for his services. However, Miranda did not accede Lawyer-client relationship
to the demand for it was contrary to their agreement. Moreover, Miranda co- Lawful possession of the clients funds, documents and papers
owned the subject property with his siblings, and he could not have agreed to Unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees
the amount being demanded without the knowledge and approval of his co- The attorneys retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the
heirs. account between the attorney and his client, and applies to documents and
A decision was then rendered in the LRC case that granted the petition funds of the client which may come into the attorneys possession.
for registration, final and executor. The LRA then transmitted the decree of In this case, THERE IS NO PROOF of any agreement between the Miranda
registration and original and owners duplicate of the title of the propertyto and Atty. Carpio that the latter is entitled to an additional professional fee
Miranda. However, He was surprised to discover that the ORIGINAL 20% of the land. Hence, there is no unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees.
CERTIFICATE TITLE had already been claimed by Atty. Carpio. Miranda talked Atty. Carpios unjustified act of holding on to the OCT is an alarming abuse
to respondent on the phone and asked him to turn it over. Atty. Carpio of the exercise of the attorneys retaining lien, which by no means is an
insisted that Miranda pays him first of the additional 10,000 pesos and 20% absolute right and cannot at all justify inordinate delay in the delivery of
share in the property but still, Miranda refused to do so, for not having agreed money and property to his client when due or upon demand.
upon. Atty. Carpio FAILED to live up to his duties as a lawyer. Furthermore, he
Atty. Carpio then registered an adverse claim on the subject OCT violated CANON 20 OF CPR by collecting exorbitant fees. It is highly improper
wherein he claimed that the agreement on the payment of his legal services for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees which were never
was 20% of the property and/or actual market value. Miranda sought for the mentioned. IT IS ESSENTIAL that a lawyer shall inform his client of all the fees
disbarment of Atty. Carpio. Miranda invoked Canon 20, Canon 16, and Rule and possible fees so that he may determine his financial capacity to pay a
16.03 of the CPR. lawyer.
Atty. Carpio, on the other hand, contends that he has a retaining lien Quantum meruit- as much as he deserved used as a basis for
over the owners duplicate of OCT. He admitted that he did not turn over the determining the lawyers professional fees IN THE ABSENCE of a contract. This
OCT because of Mirandas refusal to complete the payment. He alleged that does not apply in this case since he was already compensated by agreement.
HELD: YES. Atty. Luna B. Avance is disbarred for gross misconduct and willful
disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ordered
stricken off rom the Roll of Attorneys.
The SC finds Avance unfit to continue as a member f the Bar. It is a
lawyers duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court. Avances
conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her.She willfully disobeyed
this Court when she continued her law practice despite the five-year
suspension order against her and even misrepresented herself to be another
person. When she was twice ordered to comment on her continued law
JTVS | 1M | Legal Ethics Case Digests Batch 6 | 6
CASE NO. 51 recommended that Atty. Aurelio be suspended for 6 months. The IBP board of
BUN SIONG YAO V. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO Governors adopted and approved the recommendation.
AC No. 7023, March 30, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aurelio should be suspended for the violation of
CPR
FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that he retained Atty. Aurelio as his personal HELD: YES. He is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.
lawyer. Atty. Aurelio is a stockholder and the retained counsel of Solar Farms The SC found that the professional relationhip between them is more
& Livelihood Corp and Solar Textile Finishing Corp., both where Siong Yao is a extansive than his protestations that he only handled isolated labor cases. It
majority stockholder. Siong Yao purchased several parcels of land using his appears that even before the inception of the companies, Atty. Aurelio was
personal funds but were registered under the name of the corporation upon already providing legal services to Siong Yao. He happens to be the brother-in-
the advice of Atty. Aurelio. Atty. Aurelio happens to be the brother-in-law of law of the wife of Siong Yao and he had made prior negotiations before the
Siong Yaos wife. They had a disagreement and so Atty. Aurelio demanded the incorporation of the company.
return of his investment in the corporations. When Siong Yao refused to pay, Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
Atty. Aurelio filed 8 charges of estafa and falsification of commercial lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the turst
documents against Siong Yao, his wife, and other officers of the corporation and confidence reposed on him. An attorney is NOT permitted to discolose
with the Office of City Prosec in Mandaluyong and also in the Office of the City communications made to him in his professional character by a clien, unless
Prosec in Bulacan. the latter consents. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does
Siong Yao contended that the series of suits filed against them is a not cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the partys
form of harassment and constitutes an abuse of confidential information ceasing to employ the attorney or retaining another.
which Atty. Aurelio acquired by virtue of his employment as counsel. He Furthermore, he is guilty of forum-shopping. He took advantage of his
argued that Atty. Aurelio is guilty of representing conflicting interests when he being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant.
filed several suits not only against them but also against the two corporations
of which he is both a stockholder and a retained counsel.
On the other hand, Atty. Aurelio sustains that he handled several
labor cases in behalf of Solar Textile. He said that the funds were not personal
but that of the companys. He denied using confidential information in
pursuing criminal cases he filed but only used those information which he
obtained due to his being a stockholder. He alleged that his requests for the
copies of the financial statements were ignored by Siong Yao so he was urged
to file criminal complaints for estafa thru concealment of documents; when he
was furnished copies of the financial statements, he discovered that several
parcels of land were not included in the balance sheet.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Aurelio had een
indeed the personal lawyer and incorporator of solar Farms. In 1999, Siong
Yao discontinued availing of his services because his son was admitted to the
bar. The commissioner also found that he is guilty of forum shopping. He