Camara vs Atty. Reyes A.C. No. 6121; July 31, 2009 Ponente: Nachura,JSometime in 2003, complainant hired the services of respondent to handle her case.As partial acceptance fee, respondent received from complainantP50,000.00 evidenced by a receipt[2]placed on his calling card.Respondent, however, took no steps to protect complainants interest.As no service was rendered by respondent, complainant asked that he return the amount given him so that she could use it in repairing her house.Respondent offered that he would take charge of repairing the house.Yet, he again failed to fulfill his promise, which prompted the complainant to reiterate her demand for the return of the money.[3]As respondent failed to give back the amount demanded, complainant initiated the instant case.In his Answer, respondent prayed that the case be closed and terminated, simply because the matter has already been resolved by all the parties concerned.He added that complainant went to his office and explained that she signed the letter-complaint not knowing that it was against respondent, as she was made to believe that it was a complaint against her neighbor.[4]Complainant and respondent failed to attend the mandatory conference; and to submit their respective position papers.

Issue:Held: When respondent accepted the amount ofP50,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latters case, and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established.From then on, it was expected that he would serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her cause with fidelity, care and devotion.[12]The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainants case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.[13]Specifically,Rule 18.03 states:A lawyer shall not neglecta legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to the latters genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights.An attorney is expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his clients cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client, likewise, serves the ends of justice.Verily, the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.Accordingly, Atty. Oscar Amandy Reyes is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.Parinas v Paguinto A.C. No. 6297; Juky 13, 2004 ponente: Carpio,JSometime in October 2001, complainant Parias engaged the services of respondent Atty. Paguinto to annul her marriage to Danilo Soriano. They agreed that for the legal services, Parias would pay Paguinto an acceptance fee of P25,000, the filing fee of P2,500 and other incidental expenses. On 2 December 2001, Parias paid Paguinto P10,000 in cash as partial payment of the acceptance fee. Parias gave Paguinto a diskette containing a narration of what happened between her and her estranged husband Danilo Soriano. Parias also furnished Paguinto with a copy of her marriage contract with Soriano. Before the end of December 2001, Parias gave Paguinto P2,500 for the filing fee. Thereafter, Parias inquired from Paguinto on the progress of her annulment case. Paguinto informed her that the case was filed with the RTC and that the hearing was scheduled. Before the hearing, Parias requested for a meeting with Paguinto but the secretary informed her that the hearing was cancelled. The secretary further informed Parias that the judge reset the succeeding hearings because the judge was sick or out of town. Parinas went to the trial court to inquire about her case but the court personnel informed her that there was no such case filed in their court. It turned out that there was no annulment case filed in RTC-Manila, Branch 64. Paguinto promised to return the money that Parias paid as down payment. However, Paguinto returned the P10,000 only after Parias filed with the CBD of the IBP the present complaint for disbarment.Issue:Held: Paguinto should know that as a lawyer, he owes fidelity to the cause of his client. When a lawyer accepts a case, his acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the requisite academic learning, skill and ability to handle the case. The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients interests will suffer.[9] It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work. Thus, a clear vailation of Canon 18, Rule 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the CPR. He was suspended for 6 months.

CARANDANG v Obmina A.C. 7813; April 21, 2009Atty.Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he filed. Carandang brought suit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform Carandang of the adverse decision in said case and for failure to appeal the decision. The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an Order directing respondent Atty. Obmina to submit his Answer. However, what the Commission received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita C. Obmina-Muaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further alleged that her father is already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March 2001 and had already retired from the practice of law. On the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa to produceand present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of appearance filed by her father and proof that her father is now really a permanent resident of the United States of America. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for violation of Canon 18 of the CPR.Held : There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any manner about the decision. The Court underscored the duty of respondent to notify his client as to what happened to his case. However, the respondent who has in his possession the complete files and address of the complainant, should have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to what happened to his case. Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client, respondent is duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics. That as a result of the respondents failure to notify the complainant, the latter lost the case leading to his eviction. The Court ordered that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in the United States of America and accordingly retired from the practice of law, the Commission resolved not to close its eyes on the negligence that respondent has committed while in the active practice.

Solidon v. Macalalad [A.C. 8158. February 24, 2010]Facts: Complainant, through a mutual acquaintance asked respondent to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by complainants relatives. Respondent accepted the task to be completed within a period of eight (8) months and received Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when complainant received the certificate of title to the property. Respondent has not filed any petition for registration over the property sought to be titled up to the filing of this case. In the Complaint, Position Papers and documentary evidence submitted, complainant claimed that he tried to contact respondent to follow-up on the status of the case six (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls and text messages to their known acquaintances and relatives, and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to the respondent. However, he did not receive any return communication. Complainant sought the disbarment of respondent for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility involving negligence in handling a case. Complainant argued that he had no intention of reneging from his obligation, as he already had prepared the draft petition, and he failed to file it because it lacked the needed documentary requirements that his clients should have furnished him. The Investigating Commissioner of IBP made a finding negligence on the part of the respondent. This was affirmed by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

ISSUE:Held:In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge. We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainants evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in proving respondents negligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the rule on negligence and states:The Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation. The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to act as he committed when he failed to file the required petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any rate, we reject Atty. Macalalads defense that it was his clients who failed to contact him. Although no previous communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his clients, the records nevertheless show that Atty. Solidon, who contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf of his relatives, tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present disbarment case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms. Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of the registration application with Atty. Macalalad. Thus, he was suspended for 6 months.

Pena v AparicioFacts: Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission(NLRC) against complainant Fernando Martin Pena.Hufana is praying for claim for separation pay, butPena rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter, Aparicio sent Pena a letter reiteratinghis client's claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should Penafail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement ,he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.Issue: WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law?Held: Yes, under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client. In the case at bar, the threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmailBlackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints,obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice." The letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, the respondent was reprimanded.

ATTY. BRIONES V. ATTY. JIMENEZ

FACTS:The complainant in this disbarment case is Atty. Briones. The respondent is Atty. Jimenez. Complainant Briones is the Special Administrator of the Henson Estate, while respondent Jimenez is the counsel for Heirs of Henson.The root of herein administrative complaint for Disbarment is an RTC Order (2002). The RTC Order directed complainant Briones to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. Complainant Briones did not reply to the demand, so respondent Jimenez opted to file a criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court.Complainant Briones now claims that respondent Jimenez is guilty of violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional responsibility by filing the unfounded criminal complaint against complainant to obtain an improper advantage:Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case of proceeding.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Jimenez should be administratively liable.

HELD: Yes. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED [since no evidence of malice or bad faith] for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Licudan v Court of AppealsFacts: Atty. Teodoro Domalanta was the counsel of his sister and brother-in-law. He represented them in two civil cases and in both, he obtained judgment in favor of his clients. He filed a petition for Attorneys Lien with Notification to his Clients which provided that: He is entitled to own 97.5 sq.m of his clients share of the lot in question; He shall have usufructuary right for 10 years of his clients share of the lot in question; All the damages accruing to his client if for the undersigned counsel. A series of hearings were made and the trial court ruled in favor of the lawyer. 10 months after, the heirs of the lawyers (deceased) clients filed a motion to set aside the orders of the trial court. The lawyer stressed the fact that the payment of the professional services was pursuant to a contract which could no longer be disturbed as it has already been implemented and since then had become final. CA ruled in favor of the lawyer, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. Instant petition: The petitioners now fault the respondent court for its failure to exercise its inherent power to review and determine the propriety of the respondents lawyers fees. They also accuse their lawyer of having committed an unfair advantage or legal fraud by virtue of the Contract for Professional Services devised by him. According to the petitioners, they may have won the cases (where the lawyer represented them) but would lose the entire property won in the litigation to their lawyer. They would be deprived of their house and lot and the recovered damages since everything would just go to lawyers fees. Furthermore, a portion of the land that they would recover would still go to lawyers fees since it pertains to the lawyers son by way of usufruct for 10 years.Issues: Held: The attorneys fees in this case is unconscionable and unreasonable. The instant petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals decision reversed and set aside. Under Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. Considering the extent of the services rendered, the case the lawyer handled was just a simple case if partition and no special skill nor any unusual effort was required. There is no doubt, then, that Atty. Domalanta took advantage of the situation to promote his own personal interests. There should never be an instance where a lawyer gets as attorneys fees the entire property involved in the litigation. It is unconscionable for the client to lose everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. The practice of law is a profession rather than a trade. The Courts have the responsibility to guard against the charging of unreasonable and excessive fees by lawyers for their services as counsels. A lawyer shall at all times uphold integrity and dignity in the legal profession.[A.C. No. 5798. January 20, 2005]ALEX B. CUETO vs.ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JR.CORONA,J.:Engr. Alex Cueto engaged the services of respondent as notary public, the latter being the father of the owner of the building subject of the Construction Agreement[2]to be notarized. After notarizing the agreement, respondent demandedP50,000 as notarial fee. Complainant informed respondent that he only hadP30,000 in cash. Respondent persuaded complainant to pay theP30,000 and to issue a check for the remainingP20,000. He issued a Far East Bank check for the balance. Before the maturity date of the check, complainant requested respondent not to deposit the same for lack of sufficient funds. Still, respondent deposited the check which was consequently dishonored for insufficient funds. Subsequently, Atty. Jimenez lodged a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Cueto. In the meantime, Cueto filed his own administrative complaint against Jimenez. He alleged that Jimenez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Canons of Professional Ethics when he filed the criminal case against Cueto so he could collect the balance of his notarial fee.Held: Complainants claim that respondentsP50,000 notarial fee was exorbitant is debatable. As confirmed by the IBP, it is a recognized legal practice in real estate transactions and construction projects to base the amount of notarial fees on the contract price. Based on the amount demanded by respondent, the fee represented only 1% of the contract price ofP5,000,000. It cannot be said therefore that respondent notary demanded more than a reasonable recompense for his service.However respondents conduct in filing a criminal case for violation of BP 22 against complainant was highly improper. Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 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.There was clearly no imposition, injustice or fraud obtaining in this case to justify the legal action taken by respondent. As borne out by the records, complainant Cueto had already paid more than half of respondents fee. Respondent therefore should have been more tolerant of the delay incurred by complainant Cueto.Although we acknowledge that every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession.WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. is hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for violating Canon 20, Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional ResponsibilityG.R. No. 169079 February 12, 2007FRANCISCO RAYOS,Petitioner,vs.ATTY. PONCIANO G. HERNANDEZ,Respondent.D E C I S I O NCHICO-NAZARIO,J.:Respondent was the counsel of petitioner in a Civil Case entitled, "Francisco Rayos v. NAPOCOR,. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) recklessly, imprudently and negligently opened the three floodgates of the spillway of Angat Dam at midnight of 26 October 1978 causing the release of a great volume of stored water, the resultant swelling and flooding of Angat River, and the consequent loss of lives of some of petitioners relatives and destruction of his familys properties, for which he sought damages. The complaint was dismissed. The case was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision. The case was appealed to this Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision.Thus, a Writ of Execution7was issued by the RTC. As a consequence, NAPOCOR issued Check No. 014710 in the amount ofP1,060,800.00 payable to petitioner. Thereafter, the check was turned over to respondent as counsel of petitioner. Petitioner demanded the turn over of the check from respondent, but the latter refused. Petitioner filed with the RTC a motion8to direct respondent to deliver to him the check issued by NAPOCOR. Respondent, on the other hand, justifies his retention as a means to ensure payment of his attorneys fees. The RTC issued an Order directing respondent to deliver the check to the Sheriff of the court. A Writ of Execution was subsequently issued. Despite the Court Order, respondent refused to surrender the check. Respondent deposited the amount ofP502,838.79 in the name of petitioner which was eventually received by the latter. Thus, petitioner initiated this complaint for disbarment for the failure of respondent to return the rest of the award in the amount ofP557,961.21.Respondent averred that petitioner had a verbal contract for attorneys fees on a contingent basis and that the said contract was only reduced in writing on 6 October 1991, duly signed by both of them. Respondent contended that the petitioners complaint was without basis and was meant only to harass and put him to shame.issue: whether respondent is justified in retaining the amount awarded to petitioner in Civil Case No. SM-951 to assure payment of his attorneys fees.Held: Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the client.In the case at bar, respondent retained the amount ofP557,961.21 out of theP1,060,800.00 award for damages paid by NAPOCOR to petitioner. Under the said scheme, respondent actually collected fifty-three percent (53%) or more than half of the total amount due the petitioner; indeed, he appropriated for himself more than the amount which he had already turned over to and actually received by his client. We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed was, under the facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable. Such a fee structure, when considered in conjunction with the circumstances of this case, also shows that an unfair advantage was taken of the client and legal fraud and imposition perpetrated upon.The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, renders him unworthy to the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, Respondent is guilty of violation of the attorneys oath and of serious professional misconduct and shall be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely;