SESSION 17
ESPIRITU v. ULEP
AC No. 5808 (formerly A.C. CBD No. 99-622) | 2005-
05-04
FACTS
Oscar M. Espiritu sought assistance to enable him to
talk to respondent Atty. Jaime C. Ulep who had
allegedly been avoiding him for more than a year. He
wanted a meeting with respondent lawyer because
respondent failed to turn-over to his client, Mr.
Ricardo Maon, the amount of P50,000 given to him
and and refused to give complainant the amount of
P30,000 plus interest and expenses as balance for a
deed of absolute sale .
Upon invitation for a hearing, Atty Ulep failed to
appear on five consecutive, scheduled hearing dates -
requesting the cancellation and resetting of three and
absolutely ignoring two.
ISSUE
Wether or Not Atty. Ulep is guilty of gross violation
of general morality as well as of professional ethics
for misappropriating the funds entrusted to him?
RULING
Respondent was guilty of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The relation between attorney and client is highly
fiduciary in nature. Being such, it requires utmost
good faith, loyalty, fidelity and disinterestedness on
the part of the attorney. Its fiduciary nature is
intended for the protection of the client.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
every lawyer to hold in trust all money and properties
of his client that may come into his possession.
Money of the client or collected for the client or other
trust property coming into the possession of the
lawyer should be reported and accounted for
promptly and should not under any circumstances be
commingled with his own or be used by him.
CAMPOS v ESTEBAL
A.C. No. 10443 | 2016-08-08
FACTS
William Campos through hus wife Rosario, filed for
Disbarment against respondent Atty. Alexander C,
Estebal.
Complainants claimed that despite receipt of their
monies amounting to P330,000.00. Atty. Estebal
failed to apply or secure for them the U.S. tourist visas
that he promised. Thus, they demanded for the
return of their monies. Atty, Estebal, however, failed
to return the amount despite repeated demands.
Hence, they filed this Complaint praying that Atty.
Estebal be suspended or disbarred from the practice
of law, and that he be directed to return their monies.
ISSUE
Wether or Not Atty. Estebal is guilty of gross violation
of general morality as well as of professional ethics for
misappropriating the funds entrusted to him and for
his excessive fees?
RULING
Atty Estebal is suspended for 1 year
Respondent clearly violated Canons 15, 16 and 20 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client,
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR
AND REASONABLE FEES.
SESSION 17

Rule 2Q-01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following (6) when the client dismissed his client before the
factors in determining his fees. termination of the case or the latter withdrew
therefrom for valid reason (Rillaroza Africa de
Respondent violated Canon 15 for the reason that he Ocampo and Africa vs. Eastern telecommunications
was not candid enough to tell the complainants their Phils., Inc., 128 SCRA 475)
chance[s] of getting [a] US visa. Instead, the
respondent made the complainants believe that they
will have a good chance of getting the US visa if they
will be joined with other groups. It turned out to be
false. Complainants waited for so long before the
respondent could find other members of the group.
In the end, nothing happened.

He also violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 because he did

not account [for] the money he received from the
complainants. It is not clear to the complainants how
much is trip amount due to the respondent.

Lastly, it appears that the attorney's fees that he

collected from the complainants are excessive and
unreasonable. Considering the degree of work and
number of hours spent, the amount he collected from
the complainants is not commensurate to the degree
of services rendered. Obviously, respondent took
advantage of the weakness of the complainants in
their desire to go the United States.

While lawyers are entitled to the payment of

attorney's fees, the same should be reasonable under
the circumstances. Even if we base the attorney's fees
of the respondent on x x x quantum meruit, still, the
amount collected by the respondent is still excessive.
The Supreme Court, in justifying quantum meruit, has
laid down the following requisites:

Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum

meruit is authorized:

(1) when there is no express contract for payment of

attorney's fees
(2) when although there is a formal contract for
attorney's fees, the fees stipulated are found
unconscionable or unreasonable by the Court
(3) when the contract for attorney's fees is void due
to purely formal defects of execution
(4) when the lawyer for justifiable cause was not able
to finish the case for its conclusion
(5) when the lawyer and the client disregard the
contract for attorney's fees and
SESSION 17
SESSION 17

competence and utmost diligence. More particularly,

defense counsels are expected to spare no effort to
PEOPLE VS LAGRAMADA
save the accused from unrighteous incarcerations.
They must present, by all fair and reasonable means,
every defense and mitigating circumstance that the
law permits. This they must do so that their clients
would not be deprived of life or liberty except by due
On April 1996, Matias Lagramada by means of force,
process of law duly applied. Appellant’s counsel
violence and intimidation had carnal knowledge with
should have not only perfunctorily represented his
Josephine Lagramada a 12 yr old girl. The prosection
client during the pendency of the case, but should
failed to prove the guild beyond reasonable grounds
have kept in mind his duty to render effective legal
due to substantial discrepancies as to the time, place
assistance and true service by protecting the latter’s
and circumstances. Hence, the appellant was
rights at all times.
acquitted. However, with regards to the duty of the
defense counsel, the court noted that the appellant URMA vs BELTRAN
was incarcerated on Jan 3, 1997 without a valid
warrant. He was merely invited by complainant’s G.R. No. 180836 (August 08, 2010)
father to accompany him to the police station. Upon
arrival, he was taken in immediately and locked
behind bars. Two informations were filed against him
only on 11/11/1998 ten months adter the first day of
Petitioners and respondents are blood relatives being
incarceration.
the nearest of kin of the deceased spouses Laureano
Appelant’s counsel allowed his client to enter a plea Urma (Laureano) and Rosa Labrador-Urma (Rosa).
during the latter’s arraignment on March 16, 1999
without raising this matter.
The petitioners claim ownership of the lot they are
ISSUE
occupying by virtue of a deed of sale allegedly
Whether appellant’s counsel properly safeguarded executed by Laureano on April 10, 1985 in favor of
his rights? petitioner Teofilo Urma

RULING

No. Canon 17 provides that A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY 6 of the respondents claim ownership over portions
TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE of the subject property by virtue of a deed of donation
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED executed in their favor by Rosa in February 1996.
IN HIM.

Appellant’s counsel, in the spirit of safeguarding his

During the pre-trial, both parties agreed that the only
client’s rights, should have taken the necessary steps
matter to be resolved was the validity of the
to correct this situation. However, he allowed his
absolute deed of sale, which was claimed by the
client to enter a plea during the latter’s arraignment
petitioners and allegedly executed by Laureano in
on March 16, 1999 without raising this matter. Thus,
1985.
the former effectively waived his client’s right to
question the validity of the arrest.

If the said deed of sale was valid, the subsequent

deeds of donation executed by Rosa in favor of the
Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and
respondents would be without force and effect.
must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in them. They must also serve their clients with
SESSION 17
NBI performed the examination and found that the
questioned fingerprint was not identical with the
genuine specimen thumbmark. Hence, the absolute
deed of sale supposedly executed by Laureano was
a spurious document.
ISSUE
Was there gross negligence on the part of the
petitioner’s counsel?
RULING
NO.
The petitioners were not denied due process and
their rights were not violated when their counsel,
Atty. Raul Morales, agreed that the only issue that
needed to be resolved was the authenticity of the
deed of sale.
There was nothing amiss in entering into such
stipulations. The petitioners only cried foul when the
examination result turned out to be unfavorable to
them. Both parties agreed to submit the questioned
document to the NBI. It was clearly stipulated that the
parties would abide by the results of the NBI’s
examination.
Granting that their counsel made a mistake in
entering into such stipulations, such procedural error
unfortunately bound them. The Court has
consistently held that the mistake or negligence of a
counsel in the area of procedural technique binds the
client unless such mistake or negligence of counsel is
so gross or palpable that would require the courts to
step in and accord relief to the client who suffered
thereby.
Without this doctrinal rule, there would never be an
end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be
employed to allege and show that the prior counsel
had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or
learned.
Petition is DENIED. RTC’s decision AFFIRMED.
SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND, MARIA RENEE FRIEND and
JOHN DOE UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 165767 November 29, 2005
Spouses Friend incurred a loan from Union Bank Php
818,136.00. The money was used to purchase a
Hyundai Starex Van where the spouses executed a
promissory note promising to pay to the order of
Union Bank.
Appellants defaulted in the payment of their
obligation despite repeated demands to pay the
obligation or, in the alternative, to turn over the
subject vehicle for foreclosure. Due to such non-
compliance, appellee instituted an action for
collection of sum of money with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of replevin.
The writ of replevin was issued on to take custody of
the Hyundai Starex Van, able to implement said writ.
Appellants failed to file their answer within the
reglementary period. RTC declared the appellants in
default.
Atty. Simon D. Victa representing petitioners filed a
notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. After the
appeal was filed, petitioners changed their counsel.
Their appeal was anchored on the alleged error of the
trial court in declaring them in default.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioners are bound by the
negligence of their counsel.
RULING
YES. The doctrinal rule is that the negligence of
counsel binds the client. Otherwise, there would be
no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be
employed who would allege and show that the prior
SESSION 17

counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, While the latter appeared for the petitioners during
experienced, or learned. the hearing and signed pleadings for them, Atty.
Dumlao remained petitioners' counsel of record. As
In the case at bar, while petitioners' former counsel such, the trial court continued to serve pleadings,
failed to file an answer to the complaint filed by motions, processes, and other documents upon Atty.
Dumlao.
Union Bank, however, he seasonably filed a notice of
appeal from the decision of the trial court. Under the
On June 1, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision
Rules of Court, in ordinary appealed cases to the wherein petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
Court of Appeals, the appellant may include in his signed by both Attys. Dumlao and Bagabuyo.
assignment of errors any question of law and Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying
fact that has been raised in the court below and petitioners' motion which was received and
which is within the issues framed by the parties. misplaced by the newly-hired clerk of Atty. Bagabuyo.
Petitioners were thus afforded the chance to raise On September 14, 1998, Atty. Bagabuyo was
their defenses as the case is opened for appointed Senior State Prosecutor in the Department
comprehensive review by the appellate court. of Justice. Due to his excitement and relocation to
Manila, he failed to apprise Atty. Dumlao on the
status of the case.
In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,14 we held that:
... [T]o sustain petitioner's arguments that it was
Concerned that no action had been taken on their
denied due process of law due to negligence of its
motion for reconsideration of the Decision,
counsel would set a dangerous precedent. It would
petitioners, on December 7, 1998, verified its status.
enable every party to render inutile any adverse
In the trial court, they found that the records of the
order or decision through the simple expedient of
case were already transmitted to the Court of Appeals
alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel.
due to a partial appeal interposed by Banco Filipino.
The Court will not countenance such a farce which
This prompted petitioners to file with the trial court a
contradicts long-settled doctrines of trial and
notice of appeal which was denied for being late.
procedure.
Eventually, they filed a petition for relief from
judgment. During the hearing, they came to know
We find no reason to depart from this ruling.
that the order dated September 3, 1998 denying their
Besides, there is no compelling reason to relax the
motion for reconsideration was served upon Atty.
rules in favor of petitioners, who are not entirely
Bagabuyo only. On February 12, 1999, the trial court
blameless. Petitioners should have taken a more
issued an order dismissing the petition for relief on
active role in the proceedings of the case against
the ground that it was filed out of time. Petitioners
them. Litigants represented by counsel should not
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and
They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
await the outcome of their case. DENIED.
of Appeals ascribing to the trial court grave abuse of
discretion for dismissing their petition for relief from
judgment.
Sarraga, Sr. vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, 393 SCRA 566, G.R. No. 143783 December 9,
Issue:
2002
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which
Facts
prevented petitioners from filing a timely notice of
appeal?
Spouses Sarraga were represented by Atty. Florentino
G. Dumlao, Jr. who formally entered his appearance
Ruling:
as their counsel of record in the case with regards to
the possession of the subject lands. However, prior to
Yes, the court found out that Atty. Bagabuyo
the pre-trial, Atty. Dumlao suffered a mild stroke,
was negligent which prevented petitioners from filing
incapacitating him from participating actively in the
a timely notice of appeal. Atty. Bagabuyo knew that
proceedings, prompting petitioners to hire the
his clerk has no work experience in a law firm. He
services of another counsel, Atty. Rogelio Bagabuyo.
should have supervised her office performance very
SESSION 17
closely considering the importance of his legal calling.
Time and again this Court has admonished law offices
to adopt a system of distributing and receiving
pleadings and notices, so that the lawyers will be
promptly informed of the status of their cases. Thus,
the negligence of clerks which adversely affect the
cases handled by lawyers is binding upon the latter.
Nothing is more settled than the rule that the
negligence of counsel binds the client. However, the
application of the general rule to a given case should
be looked into and adopted according to the
surrounding circumstances. Thus, exceptions to the
said rule have been recognized by this Court: (1)
where reckless or gross negligence of counsel
deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its
application will result in outright deprivation of the
client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the interests
of justice so require. In such cases, courts must step
in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.
Here, we find that the negligence of Atty. Bagabuyo
falls under the said exceptions. Indeed, he committed
gross negligence. Petitioners were deprived of their
right to appeal when he failed to inform them
immediately of the denial of their motion for
reconsideration of the trial court's decision.
Ultimately, this will result in the deprivation of their
property, specifically Lot 416-B.
UCILA S. BARBUCO, Complainant, versus ATTY.
RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN, Respondent. 2004-08-11
| A.C. No. 5092
Facts:
On March 31, 1998, complainant, through her son,
engaged the services of respondent for the purpose
of filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals from
the decision of the RTC Cavite Branch 21. On August
6, 1998, complainant, through her son, gave
respondent the total sum of P3,500 for payment of
the docket fees. However, complainant found out
that her appeal had been dismissed only on June 4,
1999 when her son went to the Court of Appeals to
verify the status of the case. Respondent averred
that the docket fees were paid on time and that on
September 22, 1998, he filed the Appellant’s Brief
with the Court of Appeals but said appeal was
dismissed and on October 19, 1998, he filed a
motion for reconsideration on the ground that he
received notice to file brief on June 25, 1998;
however, on June 26, 1998, he met a vehicular
accident which physically incapacitated him for
several days and as a result, he suffered head
injuries which caused him to lose track of deadlines
for the filing of pleadings. On March 9, 1999, the
Motion for Reconsideration was denied on the
ground that the brief for defendant- appellant was
filed forty-three (43) days late.
Issue:
Whether respondent’s conduct relative to the
belated filing of the Appellant's Brief falls below the
standards exacted upon lawyers on dedication and
commitment to their client's cause?
Ruling: Yes.
Atty. Raymundo N. Beltran is found guilty of
negligence and malpractice and is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS.
The fact that respondent was involved in a vehicular
accident and suffered physical injuries as a result
thereof cannot serve to excuse him from filing his
pleadings on time considering that he was a member
of a law firm composed of not just one lawyer. As
such, respondent could have asked any of his
partners in the law office to file the Appellant's Brief
for him or, at least, to file a Motion for Extension of
Time to file the said pleading.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for Lawyers states that a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. An
attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
Failure to file brief within the reglementary period
certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so
if the delay of FORTY THREE (43) days resulted in the
dismissal of the appeal.
MARCIAL L. ABIERO, Complainant, versus ATTY.
BERNARDO G. JUANINO, Respondent. 2005-02-18 |
A.C. No. 5302
Facts:
SESSION 17

In this case, it appears that Marcial L. Abiero, contravention of Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code
complainant, engaged the services of Atty. of Professional Responsibility which requires a
Bernardino G. Juanino, respondent, in a labor case. lawyer to keep his client informed of the status of his
For several times, complainant, either personally or case and respond within a reasonable time to the
through his designated agents, tried to follow up the client’s request for information
status of said case but respondent would advise him
to call on a later date at which time he may have A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client at all
some news of any development with the case. When times, mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
complainant verified with the Court of Appeals the in him. He must always serve with competence and
status of the case, he found out that respondent diligence, and never neglect a legal matter entrusted
never filed a Petition for Review of his labor case so to him. An attorney should endeavor to keep his
he filed an administrative complaint charging Atty. client informed of the status of his case and respond
Juanino with negligence in connection with a legal within a reasonable time to the latter’s request for
matter entrusted to him. Respondent alleged by way information. Failure to comply with these abiding
of defense, among others, that at the time he precepts of ethical conduct renders counsel liable for
advanced the docket fees, they did not have any violating the canons of his profession.
agreement that a Petition for Certiorari would be
filed with the Court of Appeals and that weeks later,
when complainant reimbursed respondent for the
docket fees he had advanced, respondent advised
complainant that he intended to appeal the decision
of the NLRC to the Court of Appeals so he filed a
Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition; that
there was an error in judgment on respondent’s part
when instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari as
originally intended, he chose to pursue another
course of action, that of entertaining the idea of
filing a Motion for Execution to enforce the Labor
Arbiter’s Decision against the other respondents
who did not appeal said Decision.

Issue: Whether respondent violated Canons 17 and

18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Ruling:
Yes.

Respondent Atty. Bernardo G. Juanino is found guilty

of negligence and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6) months effective upon receipt of this
Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite

instructions by the client to do so constitutes
inexcusable negligence on the part of counsel. Once
a lawyer consents to defend the cause of his client,
he owes fidelity to such cause and must at all times
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. He is bound to protect his client’s interest to
the best of his ability and perform his duties to his
client with utmost diligence. The failure of the
respondent to maintain an open line of
communication with his client in direct