CANON 2

LegalEthicsDigest - Cantiller Vs Potenciano, AM 3195 (December 18, 1989)

Facts:
Herein respondent, Potenciano, is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also
with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court.
Complainant, after losing to an ejectment case, contracted the legal service of Potenciano.
Respondent told the complainant that the temporary restraining order would be secured if the
judge who would hear the case is his “barkada”

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 into the house of complainant and asked for 2,000 pesos to be given to another judge who
could secure the latter’s restraining order in the ejectment case.

Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed complainant that there
was a need to file another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain possession
of the apartment. For this purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare the amount of 10,000
pesos allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as purchase price of the
apartment and another 1,000.00 pesos to cover the expenses of the suit. Respondent stressed to
the complainant the need and urgency of filing the new complaint.

Later on during the hearing, respondent withdrew his appearance as counsel for complainant.
Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as replacement. Thus, no restraining order or
preliminary injunction was obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment case
was eventually enforced and executed.

Later on the complainant wrote a letter asking for reimbursement of the amount given to
respondent however the respondent did not returned the said amount (P 11 000) to the
complainant. It was also found that the respondent prepared a "hastily prepared, poorly
conceived, and haphazardly composed petition for annulment of judgment.”

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the allegations, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and
also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court, charged
against him by the complainant?

Ruling:
The respondent was found guilty of the offenses charged against him and was sentenced
indefinite suspension until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to
deserve to resume the practice of law. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his
capability as a lawyer.

He had also depended on his closeness to the judge to get desired decisions. He had also extorted
10,000 from client as deposit but deposit was not required and such was also not made. Lastly,
he had failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interest due to the fact that four
days before hearing of preliminary injunction, he already withdrew as counsel because of his

Page 1 of 2
reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids, however he failed to find a
replacement and failed to inform the complainant to hire another lawyer in his stead.

Page 2 of 2