1. Maglente v Agcaoili Decision of SC: YES. Atty. Agcaoili is found GUILTY.Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the Parties: practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon Complainant: Eduardo Maglente his receipt of the SC Decision, with a STERN WARNING Respondent: Atty. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr. that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. He was also ordered to return to Case no: A.C. No. 10672 complainant Eduardo A. Maglente the amount of P48,000.00 he received from the latter within ninety (90) Facts: Complainant, as President of “Samahan ng mga Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, days from the finality of this Decision. Incorporated”(Samahan), alleged that he engaged the It must be stressed that once a lawyer takes up the cause services of respondent for the purpose of filing a case in of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with order to determine the true owner of the land being competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with occupied by the members of Samahan. In connection diligence, care, and devotion, whether he accepts it for a therewith, he gave respondent the aggregate amount of P48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees for the action fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must to be instituted, as evidenced by a written always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed acknowledgment executed by respondent upon him.16 Therefore, a lawyer’s neglect of a legal himself. Despite the payment, respondent failed to file an matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes action in court. When confronted, respondent explained inexcusable negligence for which he must be held that the money given to him was not enough to fully pay administratively liable for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 for the filing fees in court. Thus, complainant asked for of the CPR. the return of the money, but respondent claimed to have spent the same and even demanded more The lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client money. Complainant further alleged that when he showing that the money was spent for the intended persisted in seeking restitution of the aforesaid sum, purpose when a lawyer receives money from the client for respondent told him to shut up because it was not his a particular purpose. Consequently, if the money was not money in the first place. used accordingly, the same must be immediately returned to the client. A lawyer’s failure to return the money to his Charges: Administrative complaint seeking the return of client despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust the full amount he had paid to respondent. reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity, Answer: Respondent denied spending complainant’s as in this case. money, explaining that he had already prepared the It is well to note that “while the Court has previously held initiatory pleading and was poised to file the same, when that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around he discovered through the Clerk of Court of the Regional the determination of the respondent-lawyer’s Trial Court of Antipolo City that the filing fee was quite costly. This prompted him to immediately relay such administrative and not his civil liability, it must be information to complainant who undertook to raise the clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed amount needed. While waiting, however, the instant liabilities which are purely civil in nature – for instance, administrative case was filed against him. when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct [from] IBP Recommendations: Atty. Agcaoili is guilty of and not intrinsically linked to his professional violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional engagement. Since the aforesaid amount was intended to Responsibility (CPR), and accordingly, recommended answer for filing fees which is intimately related to the that he be: (a) meted with the penalty of Censure, with a lawyer-client relationship between complainant and warning that a repetition of the same will be met with a respondent, the Court finds the return thereof to be in stiffer penalty; and (b) directed to account for or return the order. amount of P48,000.00 to complainant. CPR Violated: IBP Board of Governors increased the recommended penalty from Censure to suspension from the practice of Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and law for a period of three (3) months. properties of his client that may come into his possession. Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or administratively liable for the acts complained of property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property service, not money, is the primary consideration. of his client when due or upon demand. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a competence and diligence. secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection personal interests or what they owe to themselves. [therewith] shall render him liable. In this case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000 as partial payment of his acceptance 2. Brunet v Guaren fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file Parties: the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve Complainant: Spouses Brunet his client with competence and diligence when he Respondent: Atty. Guaren neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. Thus, Atty. Guaren violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Case no: A.C. No. 10164 Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the Facts: Complainants spouses Brunet hired respondent practice of law for six months. Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot which they CPR Violated: acquired. Atty. Guaren thereafter asked for P10,000 as attorney’s fees with the agreement that full payment shall Canon 17: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client be made after the delivery of the title. During the attorney- and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence client relationship, Atty. Guaren asked for an advance of reposed in him. the P1,000 and all the pertinent documents for the titling. Few months later, Atty. Guaren again asked for an Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client with additional advance of P6,000 which the complainants competence and diligence. gave. 5 years had elapsed and when the complainants ask about the case, respondent would always reply that the titling is in progress. When complainants become 3. Ramirez v Buhayang-Margallo bothered by the slow progress of the case, they demanded Parties: the return of the payments. Atty. Guaren agreed to return the money but argued that P5,000 should be retained as Complainant: Ramirez attorney’s fees. Complainants also complained that Respondent: Atty. Margallo despite the existence of their attorney-client relationship, Atty. Guaren still made a special appearance against them Case no: A.C. No. 10537 in a case. Facts: Complainant Ramirez hired respondent Atty. Charges: Complaint for malpractice and misconduct Margallo’s legal services as a counsel or a civil case or Quieting of Title before the RTC where they received an IBP Recommendations: Guaren is found guilty of the unfavorable decision. After which, they filed for a motion charges and be suspended for 3 months from the practice for reconsideration where Ramirez was ordered to file an of law appellant’s brief. Ramirez notified about the matter and respondent Margallo assured that she would prepare one. Issue: Whether or not Guaren is guilty After sometime, Ramirez asked Margallo for a follow-up Decision of SC: YES. Atty. Guaren was charged with on the Appellant’s brief but was told that there was still violating the Canon of Professional Responsibility when no word from the Court of Appeals. After a few months, he accepted the titling of complainants’ lot and despite the Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that the Appeal had acceptance of P7,000, failed to perform his obligation and been denied due to lack of merit. She also informed allowing 5 years to elapse without any progress in the Ramirez that they could no longer appeal to the Supreme titling of complainants’ lot. Court since the decision of the CA had been promulgated and that the reglementary period for filing an Appeal had The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of law is already lapsed. Ramirez then went to the CA only to find not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public out that the appeal was denied not because of the lack of diligence, competence, and accountability of the counsel merit but because of failure to file the appellant’s brief on that he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, time. It was also found out that her failure to immediately the discovery comes too late. Between the lawyer and the inform Ramirez of the unfavorable decision of the CA client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear the full was due to her losing of Ramirez’s number because her costs of indifference or negligence. daughter played with her phone and accidentally deleter CPR Violated: all her contacts. Canon 17: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client Charges: Complaint for malpractice and misconduct and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence IBP Recommendations: Respondent lawyer Guaren is reposed in him. found guilty of the charges and be suspended for 2 years Canon 18: A lawyer shall serve his client with from the practice of law. competence and diligence. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty Rule 18.03: A lawyer shall not neglect any legal matter Decision of SC: YES. Respondent Atty. Margallo was entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal counsel to therewith shall render him liable. Ramirez. Rule 18.04: A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the The lack of communication and coordination between status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable respondent Atty. Margallo and her client was palpable but time to client’s request for information. was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. This cost complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed 4. Freeman v Reyes to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant Ramirez’s interest, which is contrary to what she had Parties: sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. Complainant: Martires Freeman A problem arises whenever agents, entrusted to manage Respondent: Atty. Reyes the interests of another, use their authority or power for Case no: A.C. No. 6246 their benefit or fail to discharge their duties. In many agencies, there is information assymetry between the Facts: Complainant Marites Freeman is the wife of a principal and the entrusted agent. That is, there are facts British National who died in London. She and his son and events that the agent must attend to that may not be applied for visas to enable them to attend the wake and known by the principal. funeral but their visa applications were denied. Because of this, she sought the services of respondent lawyer This information assymetry is even more pronounced in Zenaida Reyes who assured complainant that she will an attorney-client relationship. Lawyers are expected not secure their visas and obtain the other insurance claims only to be familiar with the minute facts of their cases but due her. Respondent Atty. Reyes demanded from also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of complainant a total of more or less P200,000 for the action or their defenses. The salience of these facts is not processing of the visas and her travel to London herself, usually patent to the client. It can only be seen through which was not known by the complainant. Respondent familiarity with the relevant legal provisions that are then asked for complainant’s signature for a Special invoked with their jurisprudential interpretations. More Power of Attorney before flying to London to giver her so with the intricacies of the legal procedure. It is the authority to follow up on the insurance claims from the lawyer that receives the notices and must decide the mode insurance companies of the deceased husband. It was of appeal to protect the interest of his or her client. found out however that Atty. Reyes forged the signature Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is and used the signature for another Special Power of regarded as highly fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the Authority to authorize her to claim the insurance money client, it is the lawyer that has the better knowledge of and deposit them to her personal account amounting to facts, events, and remedies. While it is true that the client P700,000 pesos. Despite all of those expenses however, chooses which lawyer to engage, he or she usually does the visa applications were not really performed by the so on the basis of reputation. It is only upon actual lawyer and still, demanded for more money to process the engagement that the client discovers the level of visa. Criminal case of estafa and administrative case for disbarment were then filed against Reyes, where the Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account for all money or criminal case was dismissed. Atty. Reyes alleges that the property collected or received for or from client. administrative case should be dismissed as well since the Rule 16.03: A lawyer shall deliver the funds or property criminal case was dismissed. of his client when due or upon demand. Charges: Complaint for disbarment for gross dishonesty IBP Recommendations: Respondent lawyer Guaren is found guilty of the charges be suspended for the maximum period allowed by law. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty Decision of SC: YES. Decision affirmed with modification.The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. A disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer is sui generis. It is not a criminal case nor a civil case and based only on substantial evidence, not guilt beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence. An administrative case is independent from the criminal case where it may be based from and the dismissal of the latter does not preclude the continuance of the former. 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. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds or property held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, his client. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Indeed, lawyering is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. CPR Violated: Canon 1: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 16: A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession