Suntay vs Suntay  Genato filed case against Silapan (BP22)  One day, he checked the status of the case
pan (BP22)  One day, he checked the status of the case at NLRC. He
Facts: Case where Federico Suntay filed a case against his
Nephew, a lawyer, Rafael
 From 1956 to 1964, Rafael became the counsel for Federico
and he has confessed to him all his secrets. They parted
because of some political advances
 Rafael filed against Federico numerous cases which he made
use of confidential information gained while their attorney-
client relationship
 (a) Civil Case No. 4306-M 1 for injunction and damages in 1975
where respondent appeared as counsel for the plaintiff
involving fishponds which respondent had previously helped to
administer;
 (b) Civil Case No. 4726-M, 2 in 1970 where respondent
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff to determine the real
contract between the parties likewise involving the two (2)
fishponds which respondent had previously helped to
administer;
 (c) Civil Case No. 112764, for damages where respondent
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff;
 (d) I.S. No. 77-1523 for false testimony and grave oral
defamation before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Bulacan involving complainant's same testimony subject of the
complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 112764.
 Rafael is suspended for 2 years by violating Rule 21 of CPR
Hadjula vs Mianda
Facts: Hadjula and Mianda are officemates and close friends
where Hadjula is the Chief Nurse and Mianda is the Chief Legal
Officer of PNB.
 Being friends, Hadjula had asked for legal advice and told
Mianda about her secrets and showed her documents, Mianda
told Hadjula that she would refer it to some lawyer friends
 One day, their friendship soured when Mianda, being a
member of the PSBP asked for a cellular phone from Hadjula in
lieu of her promotion
 Mianda filed a case against Hadjula for falsification of public
documents and immorality, using the knowledge that she
obtained from their consultancy
 Atty Mianda was reprimanded
Genato vs Silapan
Facts: Atty. Silapan approached Genato because he wanted to
rent a small area for his law office.
 Genato introduces Silapan to Atty Dacanay which allowed
Silapan to handle some cases of Genato
 Silapan borrowed 200k from Genato for the purpose of
downpayment of his car. He secured it with postdated checks
which were NSF because account was already closed.
 He also mortgaged his house and lot to Genato without
transferring the certificate of title
 The car was in Genato’s name, Silapan failed to pay
 Silapan alleged that "complainant is a businessman who is
engaged in the real estate business, trading and buy and sell
of deficiency taxed imported cars, shark loans and other shady
deals and has many cases pending in court
 Those information was taken from the time that they had a
lawyer-client relationship
 Silapan is suspended for 1 year
Mercado vs Vitriolo
Facts: Mercado was an executive director of CHED. Her husband
filed an annulment case against her but was dismissed.
 Respondent, Atty Vitriolo, appeared as collaborating counsel
for the complainant
 Later, respondent filed a case against plaintiff for falsification of
public documents, by falsificating the birth cert of her
daughters making it appear that he is married to another man
despite the fact that he was married to Mr. Mercado
 Complainant Mercado alleged that said criminal complaint for
falsification of public document disclosed confidential facts
and information relating to the civil case for annulment, then
handled by respondent Vitriolo as her counsel.
 Complainant failed to appear in hearings, it would be difficult
to prove breach in privileged communication without he
testimony
 Therefore, case against respondent is dismissed
Montano vs IBP
Facts: Complainant hired the services of Dealca for 15k. they
agreed that 50% is payable upon the start and the other 50%
after the case
 The complainant complied with the first 50% but even if
Dealca had not yet prepared the pleadings, he
demanded an additional 4k. which the respondent gave
 Prior to filing the appellant’s brief, he demanded the
remaining amount. Complainant was unable to do so, so
Dealca withdrew as counsel
 Dealca contented that they only agreed as to the making
of appellant’s brief but compalainant was just delaying
payment by promising “will pay tomorrow”
 Dealca was reprimanded
 Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a
lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon
notice appropriate in the circumstances
Canoy vs Ortiz
 Cany sought the legal assistance of Ortiz for his alleged
illegal dismissal from Coca Cola.
 Canoy submit all the necessary docs to Ortiz for the
position papers
 Canoy visited the respondents for several times but the
lawyers is not always available
found out that the case was dismissed got failing to
prosecute and submit position papers
 Atty Ortiz contended that he has been serving numerous
indigent clients and Canoy happens to be one of them
 He further said that when he was elected as city
councilor, he became preoccupied with his work.
 Ortiz was suspended for 1 month for violating canons 17,18
and 22
Francisco vs Portugal
Facts: Portugal was hired by complainants for a criminal case, a
shooting incident which resulted to the killing of 2 people
 Atty Portugal filed an Motion for Reconsideration and
another motion which was both declined. After it, the
lawyer disappeared
 complainants found out that their petitions were denied
for being filed out of time and for failure to pay the
docket fees. The decision became final and warrants of
arrest were issued.
 Portugal contended that he wrote a letter withdrawing his
services to one of the complainants. He further said that
he instructed him how to fill up the Notice of Withdrawal
and that complainants denied because it was difficult to
look for another lawyer
 Portugal suffered 3 month suspension. Atty should have
filed the notice of withdrawal himself if he truly wanted to
withdraw. At the very least, he should have informed the
court.
Benco vs Bernardo
Facts: Bernanrdo and Magat connived in a fraudulent act to
defraud the Bencos. They said that if benco would deliver the
495k, the titling of the lot would expedite
 When the Bencos delivered to them the 495k, Magat and
Bernardo misappropriated it
 Atty bernardo answered that he has no involvement in
the alleged fraud. It was only Magat and that the latter
only hired him as counsel.
 IBP asked Bernardo to make verified comment but
Bernardo asked for numerous extensions due to his
sickness
 Thus, IBP considered him in default
 He breached canon 2 and 3, to return the 200k within 10
days, sternly warned and if he failed to return the money,
he will be suspended for 1 year
Tiong vs Florendo
Facts: Atty Florendo served as counsel for spouses Tiong who were
US citizens. He even served as administrator of their properties
 Mr. Tiong suspected that his wife and Atty Florendo has an
illicit affair. He confirmed it when he heard from the
telephone line that Atty uttered “I Love You”
 Mrs. Tiong and Atty Florendo admitted their affair, asked for
forgiveness and executed a deed that the spouses will never
sue them for immorality
 Despite the deed, Elpidio still filed a disbarment case for Atty
Florendo.
 Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital
vow of fidelity
 Florendo violated Canon 17, suspended for 6 months
In RE: Maquera
 Atty Maquera was counsel for a certain Castro who was indebted to
Edward Benavente who obtained judgment in a civil case.
 Castro’s propery was sold at public auction to satisfy the obligation, but
Castro retained the right to redemption over said property.
 In consideration for Maquera’s legal fees, Castro and Atty Maquera
entered into an oral agreement that he would assign his right of
redemption to Maquera.
 Maquera purchased the property from Benavente for $525.00 then sold
it for $320,000.
He was suspended in the practice of law in Guam for two years for
 Obtaining an unreasonably high fee for his services
 Did not comply with Guam’s “Model Rules” by entering into a business
transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest
adverse to a client unless the transaction and the terms governing the
lawyer's acquisition of such interest are fair and reasonable to the client,
and are fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in
writing”
Issue: If a lawyer is suspended in Guam, does it follow that he is
also suspended in the Philippines?
Held: No. It is not automatic but prima facie evidence only
Violated Canon 17 NEVERTHELESS, the Court rules that Maquera
should be suspended from the practice of law for the non-payment of his
IBP dues from 1977.
Valencia vs Antiniw
Facts: Atty Antiniw was previously disbarred for falsifying a deed
of sale as evidence for his client in the court
 Antiniw filed prayer for IBP praying that he be reinstated in
the practice for law for having been a changed man.
 He repents his shortcomings and was involved in religious,
charitable and different institutions.
 He even is an elected board member in Pangasinan
 He has secured a letter from Bishop Galang that he had
already changed
 Also, his wife filed a letter attaching that the complainants
already pardoned Antiniw
 He was reinstated after 15 years disbarment because he
was able to prove that he was a changed man and that his
effort show that she has gained humanitarian recognitions
Bernardo vs Mejia
Facts: Plea for reinstatement of Atty Mejia who is 71 years old and
barred from the practice of law for 15 years
 Bernardo accused Mejia of the following
 Misappropriating sums of 27,710 and 40k for his personal use
 Falsifying documents
 Issuing a worthless check
 In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law
profession. Fifteen years had already elapsed since Mejia's
name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of
seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for
reinstatement.
 According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered
enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a
legacy to his children and redeem the indignity that they
have suffered due to his disbarment.
 He has made Mejia Law Journal, publication of religious writings
 Petition is granted, Mejia is reinstated
Maglinte vs Agcaoili
 Complainant, as President of " Samahan ng mga Maralitang
Taga Ma. Corazon III, Incorporated" (Samahan), alleged that
he engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of
filing a case in order to determine the true owner of the land
being occupied by the members of Samahan.
 In connection therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate
amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees
for the action to be instituted, as evidenced by a written
acknowledgmentexecuted by respondent himself.
 Despite the payment, respondent failed to file
an action in court. When confronted, respondent explained
that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for
the filing fees in court.
 Thus, complainant asked for the return of the money, but
respondent claimed to have spent the same and even
demanded more money.
 Complainant further alleged that when he persisted in
seeking restitution of the aforesaid sum, respondent told him
to shut up because it was not his money in the first place.
 Hence, complainant filed this administrative complaint
seeking the return of the full amount he had paid to
respondent.
 He violated canon 16 and 18
 Atty Agcaoili was ordered to return 48 k in 90 days. Faillure
to comply will warrant more penalty
 Suspended for 1 year
