Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

1.

A.C. No. 10681

February 3, 2015

SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION and BLESILDA S. CONCEPCION, Complainants, vs.ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA, Respondent. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS: Complainants alleged that from 19972 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their

cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to materialize. On January 11, 2010, the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter received complainants’ letter-complaint charging respondent with violation of Rule 16.04 of the CPR. The rule prohibits lawyers from borrowing money from clients unless the latter’s

interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.

Comment, respondent denied borrowing 2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real debtor.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR.

RULING: Yes. Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected. In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated Canon 7 of the CPR which reads:

In his

2. A.C. No. 10134

November 26, 2014

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE), represented by its President, ATTY. VIRGINIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant, vs.ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent. MENDOZA, J.

FACTS: The complainant alleged that the liquidation for the 11th PACE national convention was submitted by Atty. Diaz only on March 29, 2007, during the 12th PACE national convention in Iloilo City; that during the 12th convention, an election of officers was conducted and Atty. Diaz ran for the position of National Treasurer, but she was not elected; that on the last day of the convention or on March 31, 2007,the outgoing Board of Directors, including Atty. Diaz, passed and approved Resolution No. 1-2007 appropriating the amount of 30,000.00as term-end bonus for each PACE official qualified thereto; that Atty. Diaz did not submit a liquidation report for the 12th convention; that there was no turn over of monies belonging to the association as a matter of procedure despite a letter of demand, dated June 20, 2007 sent to Atty. Diaz; and that the new set of PACE officers issued Board Resolution No. 00-07 directing past president, Rosita D.

Amizola; and past treasurer, Atty. Diaz, to explain why they failed to liquidate the finances of PACE for the Davao and Iloilo conventions.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Diaz violated Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING: YES. Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months. Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. In order to enjoy this privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.

One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor.

3. A.C. No. 8481 [Formerly B.M. No. 1524], August 03, 2010 ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO AND SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR., RESPONDENT.PERALTA, J.

FACTS: In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned. However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.

Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man for money or malice.”

4. Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006

Facts: Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for estafa thru falsification of public document. A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when respondent Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct? Ruling: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such, respondent is being suspended for six (6) months.

5. ATTY. POLICARIO I. CATALAN, JR. vs. ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA A.C. No. 7360, 24 July 2012

FACTS:Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously appeared as public prosecutor, hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty. Silvosa and the accused are relatives and have the same middle name, Atty. Silvosa displayed manifest bias in the accused’s favor. Atty. Silvosa caused numerous delays in the trial of the Esperon case by arguing against the position of the private prosecutor. In 2000, Provincial Prosecutor Guillermo Ching granted Atty. Catalan’s request to relieve Atty. Silvosa from handling the Esperon case. The RTC rendered judgment convicting the accused on 16 November 2005. On 23 November 2005, Atty. Silvosa, as private lawyer and as counsel for the accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail pending finality of judgment of the Esperon case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Silvosa is guilty only of the First Charge in violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be given the penalty of REPRIMAND

RULING: NO. Atty. Catalan relies on Rule 6.03. Atty. Silvosa, on the hand, relies on Rule 2.01 and on Canon 14 of the CPR. The Court agree’s with Comm. Funa’s finding that Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03. When he entered his appearance on the Motion to Post Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts."

Atty. Silvosa’s attempts to minimize his involvement in the same case on two occasions can only be described as desperate.