SUNTAY VS SUNTAY

 Frederico suntay vs atty. rafael suntay

 Respondent filed complaints against the petitioner making use of the confidential information
gaine while their attorney-client relationship existed
 OSG: malpractice for violating the confidentiality of client-lawyer relationship and engaging in
unethical conduct
 IBP CBD adopted the OSG: respondent suspended for 2 ears for immoral conduct
 RULE 21.01
 The SC adopted the IBP recommendation and suspended for 2 yrs

MA. LUISA HADJULA VS .ATTY. ROCELES MADIANDA

 Rule 21.02
 Used to be friends coz they worked at the BFP
 Complainant asked for legal advice and shared secrets, marriage contract, birth and baptismal
certificate to respondent only to find out that she will be referred to her lawyer friend
 P filed a criminal and disciplinary actions against the latter when the Respondent, then a member
of the BFP promotion board, demanded a cellular phone in exchange for the complainant's
promotion
 IBP CBD report and recommendation & IBP board of governonrs - respondent be reprimanded for
revealing the secrets of the complainant
 The moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek legal advice, a
veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the
lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession.
 SC: respondent is hereby reprimanded and sternly warned against a repetition of the same act
complained of.

WILLIAM ONG GENATO VS. ATTY. ESSEX SILAPAN

 Canon 17
 R asked C if he could rent a small office space in c's building for his law practice. C agreed and
introduced atty benjamin dacanay (C's retained lawyer).
 The Atty-client relationship started when atty dacanay made R handle some of c's cases.
 R borrowed 200,000 from C which he intended to use a downpayment for the purchase of a new
car. R issued a postdated check in the amount of 176,528.00 to answer for the 6 months interest
on the loan. He likewise mortgaged to C his house and lot but did not give the title because it was
subject to reconstitution.
 R failed to pay the amortization on the car and the financing firm sent demand letters to C.
 C tried to encash R's check but was dishonored because the account was closed.
 C filed a criminal case of BP 22 and civil case for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
 R's allegations were false and immaterial. C filed a complainant against him.
 R is guilty of breaking confidential lawyer-client relationship and should be held administratively
liable.
 The IBP Board of Governors found him guilty as charged and suspension for 1 year.
 The SC affirmed IBP but modified the suspension to 6 months since it was his first admin offense.

ROSA MERCADO VS. ATTY. JULITO VITRIOLO

Facts: Complainant’s husband filed Civil Case for annulment of their marriage with the RTC which
had been dismissed by the trial court, and became final and executory. Respondent filed his
Notice of Substitution of Counsel for the complainant. Respondent filed a criminal action against
 complainant for violation of Articles 171 and 172 (falsification of public document) of the Revised
Penal Code. Respondent alleged that complainant made false entries in the Certificates of Live
Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. More specifically, complainant allegedly
indicated in said Certificates of Live Birth that she is married to a certain Ferdinand Fernandez, and
that their marriage was solemnized on April 11, 1979, when in truth, she is legally married to
Ruben G. Mercado and their marriage took place on April 11, 1978. Complainant 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 as her counsel. This
prompted complainant Mercado to bring this action against respondent. She claims that, in filing
the criminal case for falsification, respondent is guilty of breaching their privileged and
confidential lawyer-client relationship, and should be disbarred.
Issue: Whether the Respondent violated the complainant’s attorney-client privilege by filing a
criminal case against the latter.
Held: No, the court held that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainant’s
allegations. The court note that complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in
confidence disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked
specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged communication when he
instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of public documents because the criminal
complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She
did not, however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint.
The court cited the factors essential to establish the existence of the privilege, viz:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as
such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6)
are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal advisor,
(8) except the protection be waived.
In fine, the factors are as follows:
(1) There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it
is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication.
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity.

FELICISIMO MONTANO VS IBP AND ATTY. JUAN DEALCA

FACTS:
The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. Ronando
L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of Appeals docketed wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-
appellant.
The parties agreed upon attorney’s fees in the amount of P15,000.00 fifty percent (50%) of which was
payable upon acceptance of the case and the remaining balance upon the termination of the case.
Accordingly, complainant paid respondent the amount of P7,500.00 representing 50% of the attorney’s fee.
Thereafter, even before respondent counsel had prepared the appellant’s brief and contrary to their
agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the termination of the case, Atty. Dealca demanded
an additional payment from complainant obliged by paying the amount of P4,000.00.
Prior to the filing of the appellant’s brief, respondent counsel again demanded payment of the remaining
balance of P3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, respondent lawyer withdrw his appearance as
complainant’s counsel without his prior knowledge and/or conformity.
Thus this complaint charging respondent with misconduct and praying that he be “sternly dealt with
administratively.”
ISSUE: W/N respondent committed misconduct and violated provisions of the CPR?
HELD:
Yes. The Court finds respondent’s conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. 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. Although he may withdraw his services when the client deliberately
fails to pay the fees for the services, under the circumstances of the present case, Atty. Dealca’s withdrawal
was unjustified as complainant did not deliberately fail to pay him the attorney’s fees. In fact, complainant
exerted honest efforts to fulfill his obligation. Respondent’s contemptuous conduct does not speak well of a
member of the bar considering that the amount owing to him was only P3,500.00. rule 20.4 of Canon 20,
mandates that a lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Sadly, for not so large a sum owed to him by
complainant, respondent lawyer failed to act in accordance with the demands of the Code.
The Court, however, does not agree with complainant’s contention that the maximum penalty of disbarment
should be imposed on respondent lawyer. In the present case, reprimand is deemed sufficient.
Respondent was REPRIMANDED.

ELMER CANOY VS. ATTY. JOSE MAX ORTIZ

 Canon 22.02
This is a case wherein complainant Elmer Canoy accused his former counsel, Atty. Jose Max Ortiz
of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his
former employer, Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, and was represented in said case by Atty. Ortiz.
Canoy, explained Ortiz, was one of his indigent clients, in that it was the latter’s practice since
commencing his practice of law to cater to indigent and law-income clients. In the labor case
against CCBP filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, the labor arbiter ordered the
parties to submit their respective petition papers. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents
and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the position paper. Canoy made several follow-
ups with the office of his attorney, said visits were unfruitful until it came to his knowledge on
2000, upon inquiring with the NLRC itself, that his complaint was already dismissed way back in
1998 for failure to prosecute because the parties did not submit their position papers. Atty. Canoy
further claimed that Atty. Ortiz never informed him about the status of his case nor of the fact
that he failed to submit the position paper.
In his Comment, Atty. Ortiz admitted to not being able to submit the position paper because the
period within which to file it lapsed already, with arbiter already dismissing the case, but reasoned
out that his election as a Councilor of Bacolod City made him very preoccupied with his functions.
His duties as a public servant and a lawyer are “beyond physical limitation”, said Atty. Ortiz, so he
had to withdraw from his other cases. He also claimed of not being able to remember whether he
immediately informed Canoy of the dismissal of the case, but recalled of Canoy conveying that he
already has a lawyer to handle the case. Hence, his office did not insist on refiling the case. Atty
Ortiz also pointed out that the dismissal of Canoy’s complaintwas without prejudice.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Ortiz is guilty of misconduct and malpractice

Ruling
Upon investigation of the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines concluded that clearly “Atty.
Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his
client” and recommended that Atty. Ortiz be reprimanded. The Supreme Court, however, finds
the recommended penalty of the IBP too lenent and instead suspended Atty. Ortize from the
practice of law for one month, in lieu of the admonition or reprimand. According to the Court, Atty
Ortiz several canons and rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, Atty. Ortiz
 was guilty of violating Rule 18.03 of the Code, which states, “A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable,” on
account of his failure to file the position paper on time, tantamount to neglecting a legal mater
entrusted to him. That the case was dismissed without prejudice does not mitigate his liability.
Further, Ortiz also violated Rule 22.02, which states,“A laywer shall withdraw his services only for
good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.” Therefore, even if Atty. Ortiz was
justified in terminating his services due to his elective position, he should have coordinated with
the new council of Canoy and turned over to the latter all papers and property which the Client is
entitled and should have cooperated with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, as
per Rule 22.02.

MA. GINA FRANCISCO VS. ATTY. JAIME PORTUGAL

 Rule 14.01
FACTS:
SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin (complainants)
were convicted of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. They engaged the services
of ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL who filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Sandiganbayan but, was denied. Still, Atty. Portugal filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File
Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration
and filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Thereafter, complainants never
heard from Atty. Portugal again despite their earnest efforts to reach him. Checking on the
status of their petition, complainants found out that the petition was denied due to late
filing and non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained finality and warrants
of arrest had already been issued against them. Complainants filed before the Supreme
Court an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Portugal for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, gross
misconduct, and gross negligence for alleged mishandling of the petition which eventually
led to its denial with finality. Atty Portugal contends that he was not the original counsel of
the complainants and that he has already expressed through a form of a letter his intent to
withdraw as counsel of the complainants but he never received any reply from them.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Portugal committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling the
case and petitions of the complainants.
RULING:
YES, Atty. Portugal was guilty of gross negligence or misconduct. The court believes that the
dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of Atty.
Portugal. Atty. Portugal ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the Notice
to Withdraw and not the complainants. It should have been Atty. Portugal who undertook
the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not
have relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the caseAtty. Portugal is not at
liberty to abandon the case 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. Furthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to
both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service,
not money, is the primary consideration. Atty. Portugal was found guilty of the charge and
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.

BENGCO VS. BERNARDO

Facts:
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for
deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a
lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat –
willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using
false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to
the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.

It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP
495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed
misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of
the land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the
Register of Deeds which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to
induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not
comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use the money for personal use.
The complainants demanded the return of the money to no avail.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR)?

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He, himself,
admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding
the purported titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive
the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never
denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP
495,000.00.

The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3
of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the amount of
PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The
respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.

ELPIDIO TIONG VS. ATTY. GEORGE FLORENDO

FACTS
Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong.Elpidio, a
US citizen is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty.Florendo were having
an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversationwhere he heard Atty.
Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confrontedthe two and both
eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elenathen executed and
signed an affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that
they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidioforgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But
nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case againstFlorendo.Florendo said he can no longer be
sanctioned because he was already pardoned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.

HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This classof cases is
meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As such,
pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for
disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with hisclient’s wife manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his ownmarital vow of fidelity. It showed his
utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed
upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of ProfessionalResponsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma.
Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grosslyimmoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office
for any deceit,malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others.
Itcannot be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretionconsidering
that their affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6months.

IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G.
MAQUERA

Facts:
The District Court of Guam informed the SC of the 2-year suspension of Atty. Maquera from the practice
of law in Guam. TheIBP sent Maquera a
Notice of Hearing
requiring him to appear beforethe IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline but the notice was returned
unserved because Maquera’s current address was unknown.
TheIBP found that Maquera was admitted to practice law in thePhilippines in 1958 and in Guam in
1974.He was suspended inGuam for misconduct, as he acquired his client's property aspayment for his
legal services, then sold it and as a consequenceobtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his
client's case.Based on the
Decision
of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBPconcluded that although the said court found Maquera liable
for misconduct, "there is no evidence to establish that [Maquera]committed a breach of ethics in the
Philippines. However, the IBPstill resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay hisannual
dues as a member of the IBP since 1977,
Issue:
W/N member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended from the practice of law in a
foreign jurisdiction maylikewise be disbarred or suspended in this country for the sameinfraction?
Held:
Yes.As Maquera has not yet been able to adduce evidence onhis behalf, the SC required him to show
cause why he should not besuspended or disbarred for said acts. In the meantime, Atty.Maquera was
SUSPENDED for 1 YEAR or until he shall have paidhis membership dues, whichever comes later.
Ratio:
The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired hisclient's property by exercising the right
of redemption previouslyassigned to him by the client in payment of his legal services. Suchtransaction
falls squarely under Article 1492 in relation to Article1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, which prohibits
the lawyer'sacquisition by assignment of the client's property which is the subjectof the litigation
handled by the lawyer. Under Article 1492 theprohibition extends to sales in legal redemption.This is
also a valid ground for his suspension from the practice of lawhere as it is violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility,specifically, Canon 17 which states that "[a] lawyer owes fidelity tothe cause
of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidencereposed in him;" and Rule 1.01 which prohibits
lawyers fromengaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.However,
it bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court'sjudgment ordering Maquera's suspension from the
practice oflaw in Guam does not automatically result in his suspension ordisbarment in the
Philippines
Under Section 27,Rule 138 of theRevised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension inGuam
are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in thisjurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the
foreign court's actionincludes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension inthis jurisdiction ( i.e.
an act or omission constituting deceit,malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoralconduct,
or a violation of the lawyer's oath) Likewise, thejudgment of the Superior Court of Guam only
constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's unethical acts as a lawyer. Morefundamentally, due
process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and to present evidence

CONSTANCIA VALENCIA VS. ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW

This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the respondent who was disbarred on 26 April 1991 for
falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the
respondent filed several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the bar. His motions and appeals
were accompanied by endorsements of his good moral character by various organizations such as IBP-
Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and Urdaneta,
Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary
Club of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law.

Held:
Records show that the long period of respondent’s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself
of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity
to live up once again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. It is well-settled that the
objective of disciplinary proceedings is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided by their doctrine and
considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contribution and his being
again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Supreme Court find that it is now time to lift
respondent’s disbarment.

From <http://lexdefender.blogspot.com/2017/12/case-digest-constancia-i-valencia.html>

RODOLFO BERNARDO VS. ATTY. ISMAEL MEJIA

FACTS: On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of
the following administrative offenses: 1) Misappropriating and converting to his personal use: a) part of
the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on property belonging to
Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and b) part of another sum of P40,000.00
entrusted to him for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of title of
Bernardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V; 2) Falsification of certain
documents, to wit: a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in his
favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainant’s affidavit dates October 4, 1989); b) a deed of sale
dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); and c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the
spouses Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in Bernardo’s favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.); 3) issuing a check,
knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo in the
amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently
funded.

ISSUE: Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the
sound discretion of the Court.

HELD: The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person
of good moral character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration
the applicant’s character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s
for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed
between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement. The Court is inclined to grant the
present petition. Fifteen years has passed since Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of
disbarment. Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia’s disbarment, it also cannot
close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the
length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in
allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his
disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse.
Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough.
Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to
show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as
disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders. We reiterate, however, and remind
petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with
the rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice
law.

Re: 2003 BAR EXAMINATION

MAGLENTE VS AGCAOILI

EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE,
*
Complainant, v.
ATTY. DELFIN R.AGCAOILI, JR.
,
Respondent
.
A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015

COMPLAINANTS’ CONTENTION:

Complainant, as President of
“Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma.Corazon III, Incorporated”
(Samahan), alleged that he engaged theservices of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in order
todetermine the true owner of the land being occupied by the membersof Samahan .
2 In connection therewith, he gave respondent theaggregate amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover
the filing fees for theaction to be instituted, as evidenced by a written acknowledgmentexecuted by
respondent himself.
3 Despite the payment, respondentfailed to file an action in court. When confronted, respondent
explainedthat the money given to him was not enough to fully pay for the filing feesin court.
4 Thus, complainant asked for the return of the money, butrespondent claimed to have spent the same
and even demanded moremoney.
5 Complainant further alleged that when he persisted in seekingrestitution of the aforesaid sum,
respondent told him to shut up becauseit was not his money in the first place.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

Respondent denied spending complainant’s money, explaining that he

had already prepared the initiatory pleading and was poised to file thesame, when he discovered
through the Clerk of Court of the RegionalTrial Court of Antipolo City that the filing fee was quite costly.
Thisprompted him to immediately relay such information to complainant whoundertook to raise the
amount needed. While waiting, however, theinstant administrative case was filed against him.
IBP-CBD RECOMMENDATION:
Atty. Agcaoili is guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR), and
accordingly, recommended that he be: (a)meted with the penalty of Censure, with a warning that a
repetition of thesame will be met with a stiffer penalty; and (b) directed to account for or return the
amount of P48,000.00 to complainant.

IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS

:It increased the recommended penalty from Censure to suspension fromthe practice of law for a period
of three (3) months.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
Atty. Agcaoili is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 ofCanon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon
18 of the CPR. Accordingly, he ishereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1)year,
effective upon his receipt of the SC Decision, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt withmore severely. He was also ordered to return to complainant Eduardo
A.Maglente the amount of P48,000.00 he received from the latter withinninety (90) days from the
finality of this Decision.It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client,he is duty-
bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care, and
devotion, whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and mustalways be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed uponhim. 16
Therefore, a lawyer’s neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by
his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be heldadministratively liable for
violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.The lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client
showing thatthe money was spent for the intended purpose when a lawyer receivesmoney from the
client for a particular purpose. Consequently, if themoney was not used accordingly, the same must be
immediatelyreturned to the client.

A lawyer’s failure to return the money to his client

despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him andis indicative of his lack of
integrity,

as in this case.
It is well to note that “while the Court has previously held that disciplinary
proceedings should only revolve around the determination of therespondent-
lawyer’s administrative and not his civil liability, it must be
clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities whichare purely civil in nature
–
for instance, when the claim involves moneysreceived by the lawyer from his client in a transaction
separate anddistinct [from] and not intrinsically linked to his professionalengagement. Since the
aforesaid amount was intended to answer forfiling fees which is intimately related to the lawyer-client
relationshipbetween complainant and respondent, the Court finds the return thereofto be in order.
APPLICABLE CPR:
CANON 18
–
A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITHCOMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.Rule 18.03
–
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,and his negligence in connection [therewith]
shall render him liable.CANON 16
–
A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS ANDPROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO
HISPOSSESSION.Rule 16.01
–
A lawyer shall account for all money or property collectedor received for or from the client.Rule 16.03
–
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

From <https://www.scribd.com/document/353654879/Maglente-vs-Agcaoili>