2.Ma. Libertad Cantiller v. Atty. Humberto Potenciano (Adm. Case No. 3195, December 18,1989) Facts: Atty. Potenciano is a practicing lawyer charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming of an officer of the court by petitioner Cantiller. Petitioner had a sister named Peregrina who was a defendant in an action for ejectment before the MTC and also in another case before the RTC for reconveyance with damages, both involving an apartment unit being rented by petitioner and her sister. Both cases were decided against them, causing them to be served a notice to vacate the property. Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a Sheriff, which introduced them to Atty. Potenciano. The parties “impliedly agreed” that respondent would handle their case. A petition entitled “Annulment of Judgment, Annulment of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Status Quo Order, etc.” was prepared by respondent to forestall the execution of the order to vacate. The complainant was made to sign by respondent what she described as a “hastily prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed” petition for annulment of judgment. She alleged that respondent promised her tha the restraining order would be secured if only because the judge who would hear the matter was his “katsukaran” (close friend). When the petition was filed, respondent demanded P1,000 as attorney’s fee, which was paid. However, when the case was raffled and assigned, the presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel on the ground of their friendship. Respondent again asked her to be ready with P2,000 to be given to another judge who will issue the restraining order, but the petitioner was only able to raise the amount of P1,000 which was immediately given to him. Respondent later informed them that he could not locate the judge. They instead went to a Max’s Restaurant where they ordered food, allegedly for the judge. Respondent again asked for the balance of the P2,000 he demanded earlier, causing petitioner to give $10 which was her last money. Respondent informed petitioner that there was a need to file another case for them to retain possession of the apartment, requiring them to pay P10,000 to be deposited with the Treasurer’s Office as purchase price of the apartment and another P1,000 for expenses of suit. When the petitioner gave the money, a complaint for “specific performance, annulment of simulated or spurious sale with damages” was filed. At the hearing, respondent failed to secure a restraining order and withdrew his appearance as counsel for Petitioner. They were not able to get another lawyer as replacement and the order to vacate was eventually enforced. Petitioner was later informed that there was no need to make the deposit and that no deposit was made. She sent a demand letter to respondent asking for the amount, but it was never returned, causing her to file the complaint. Issue: Whether Atty. Potenciano is guilty of the charges against him and should be suspended. That circumstance explains the public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client. honest. Having represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for the apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of his representation. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. respondent was more interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a hopeless situation. Complainant reposed full faith in him. At a time when strong and disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client’s cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. Potenciano to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to resume the practice of law. Lawyers should be fair. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is obvious. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most elementary principles of professional ethics.above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in protecting his client’s interests. He bragged about his closeness to the judge concerned in one case and talked about the need to “buy” the restraining order in the other. respectable. he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability. The court agreed that the petitions appeared to be poorly prepared and written. he also serves the endsof justice. Humberto V. Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. .Ruling: Yes. Apparently. His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity. trust and confidence which he owes his client. Worse still he got P10. to the bar or to the public.00 as alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client. When a lawyer takes a client’s cause. does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. The little time involved is no excuse. strict compliance with one’s oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.000. After considering the entirety of the circumstances present in this case. More so in this case. This is so because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court. Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s cause. Instead he pocketed the same. where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby suffered by losing all her cases. It is a matter of public interest. this Court finds Atty. in addition to being rather poorly and awkwardly worded. No. to his compadre Lo Bu . Notwithstanding such sale to Lo Bu. He could add that his denial was to be correlated with his special defenses. he gave his name as the manager. where he concentrated on points not previously admitted.” Petitioner labor union claimed that the absence of good faith on the part of Respondent Lo Bu was made clear thus: “There was no actual turn over of the business. At the time Ong Ting died. Lo Bu and Court of Appeals (G. His 19 year old son became in charge of the shop and workers. When Lo Bu applied for the original registration of the firm name. he executed a deed of absolute sale to sell all his business. be casuistic and take refuge in the fact that the paragraph of the petition. L40136. merely denied the allegations of the petitioner union. improvements. Busmente in his answer to the petition. in the New Century Foundry Shop. His family continued to reside therein without paying any rental to Lo Bu. Ruling: Such conduct on the part of counsel is far from commendable. Issue: Whether Atty. 1975) Facts: After the Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned.R. Ong Ting established the New Century Foundry Shope. Busmente properly performed his obligation as an officer of the court while acting aas counsel for Lo Bu. also prolix. That is the most that can be said of his performance. of course. He was of course expected to defend his client’s cause with zeal. his daughter became the manager and supervisor. He could. Ong Ting filed a verified urgent motion to reopen the case and a verified motion for reconsideration. he was still residing in the premises of the shop.00. materials. After his proposals to settle the case filed against him by the Workers Union for Unfair Labor Practice (where a writ of execution was already ordered against Ong Ting) were rejected by their counsel. March 25. where he and his family resided. with unnecessary matter being included therein without due regard to logic or coherence or even rules of grammar. (as a measure to avoid liability) which he acknowledged as fully paid. “Ong Ting lost everything. Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union and Filemon Alvarez v.” There was no doubt that the sale was intended to circumvent any judgment the court may render unfavorable to respondents. we cannot squeeze blood out of nothing. For even if such be the case.5. but not at the disregard of the truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor statutes. for P20. and it is not enough. supplies and rights. the alleged manager in absentia. Respondent’s counsel Atty. machineries.000. It was alleged that as a result of the fire. was. which he denied. (Counsel for Lo Bu filed several cases for Replevin and Certiorari claiming that he was ignorant of the scheme. He ought to remember that his obligation as an officer of the . including equipment. that there was lack of jurisdiction. and that the petitioner labor union failed to put up an indemnity bond). Attorney Busmente had not exculpated himself. Ruling: No. Mere assumptions cannot be the basis of any finding against any member of the bar who. Beltran was accused of being liable of malpractice and gross misconduct for: 1. The answer with supporting documents of respondent did present an entirely different picture. is presumed to act with the utmost decorum and good faith in all his dealings. Complainant and respondent with their witnesses were duly heard. and 3. 2. filing a motion to require complainant to render an accounting and to deliver the property left in the will to the beneficiaries. Atty. and the case was recommended dismissed. This presumption in favor of the respondent in the probate proceedings in question cannot be overcome by complainant’s aforesaid mere assumption or imputation without any evidence in support of the same. 1975) Facts: Atty. Eustaquio Beltran (Adm. as well as the order of the court terminating the same. The records were bereft of any evidence to support the charge that respondent detached and removed official records from the Office of the Clerk. His explanation was reasonable because when he . Case No. Juan Azor v. the financial report of complainant Juan Azor as executor. the matter was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. With the allegations of facts in the complaint thus being controverted. thus necessitating a complaint for forcible entry. report and recommendation. as an official of the court. What motivated complainant to file this administrative case became apparent as respondent represented clients with opposing interest. no less than the dignity of the profession. 8. 667 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. 1054. Complainant merely assumed such fact. having instructed his client Lorelie Bornales and the latters’ mother to enter forcibly a parcel of land forming part of the estate when he knew of its having been previously sold.court. Issue: Whether Atty. the report characterized it as “unfounded and baseless. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind. Respondent even submitted in evidence a certification of the branch clerk attesting to the fact that the records were all intact and unaltered. March 25.” Respondent’s filing of motion was not a deliberate attempt or intention o his part to misled the probate court.taking or causing to detached from the rollo of Special Proceedings No. Beltran is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct. ready and eager to do his every bidding. As to the filing of the motion for accounting despite his previous knowledge that the complain ant as executor had already filed his financial report and that in fact the probate proceedings had been closed and terminated. then he puts into serious question his good standing in the bar. requires that he should not act like an errandboy at the beck and call of his client. That on May 26. [gave] due course to the complaint. 1972. L-35113. 5. Complainant should be aware that this Court does not look with favor upon accusations arising from dissatisfaction and resentment at the mode in which a lawyer diligently and tenaciously prosecutes matters entrusted to him. And as to the last claim. Such an actuation. No. meriting disapproval then.R. and the subject matter in litigation. ordering the respondent Sheriff of Quezon City or his deputy to demolish the house of your petitioner etc. is called upon to be much more careful and meticulous in examining the records of a case and noting every pleading. is even more reprehensible now under the temper of the present dispensation that seeks to do away with every vestige of malodorous practices indulged in by the rich and the powerful in the community. and on the same day of May 26. Apparently what motivated him in filing his complaint was the zeal with which respondent fought for the interests of his client. he got the impression that the probate proceedings had not yet been finally terminated since the motion for consideration and approval of the accounting appears to have not been resolved by the court. Respondent should be absolved of the charges hurled against him.will of complainant was aroused by respondent coming into possession of information that did cause a reflection on the discharge of his trust as executor. That your petitioner has no knowledge of the existence of said case between the respondents Marcelo Daquis. Complainant ought to have displayed a greater sense of responsibility. and wherein the respondent Judge. 11. the papers are not kept in as orderly a manner as is both proper and commendable. even if as has happened in not a few cases. the Sheriff of Quezon City through his deputy [gave] three (3) days to your petitioner to remove his house or face demolition. That your petitioner was not given a day in court to present his side of the case. PHHC. . 7. Marcelo Daquis (G. and of the dictum of due process of the constitution. in violation of law. respondent has shown that his legal services were sought by on of the sisters for the first time only after the supposed forcible entry into the land in question. Incensed. March 25. Complaint is dismissed. He should have refrained from imposing on this Court or the Office of the Solicitor General a needless burden and in convenience. 1972. he would utilize what appeared to be a dominant economic position in the community to make things difficult for respondent. and Cesar Navarro. There are intimations in the record that the ill. the respondent Judge issued an order of demolition. 1975) Facts: Attorney Macario Directo filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of petitioner including categorical allegations that: 4. Instead of being condemned under the circumstances. Fairness to both complainant and respondent compels the observation that the latter.examined the records of the case. he should be commended. as a member of the bar.. Eugenio Cuaresma v. as set forth in a resolution of the court that petitioner was fully aware of the existence of the case. (JRMDC) but the levy caused to be made by PENTACAPITAL over the property was carried over to the new certificate of title. Inc. That is in his favor.After receipt of the comments of respondents. a penalty of reprimand would suffice. Court of Appeals (G. 2000) Facts: Private Respondent Commercial Credit Corp. April 12. There was no truth as to the allegations made by Atty. Moreover. JRMDC filed a suit against PENTACAPITAL for cancellation of .. who was represented by Atty. Every member of the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with this Court is of the very essence of honorable membership in the profession. he decided on such a version as a way out. “it had been an honest one. That is more than a bare possibility. (aka PENTACAPITAL Finance Corp.R. During the pendency of the case. and that Atty. Directo should be given disciplinary action for deliberately making false allegation in his petition. 118655. Held: Yes. and would say in all sincerity that there was no deliberate attempt and intent on his part of misleading this Honorable Court. Atty. in the spirit of charity and forbearance.”4 Issue: Whether Atty. At least. There is the assumption though of good faith. Elias executed a Dacion en Pago over the property attached in favor of Joint Resources Management Development Corp. It could very well be that after his attention was called to the misstatements in his petition. still. that petitioner refused to vacate the lot involved. He closed his Compliance with the plea that if there were any mistake committed. it would serve to impress on respondent that in the future he should be more careful in the preparation of his pleadings so that the least doubt as to his intellectual honesty cannot be entertained. Directo file a motion for intervention in the case. it is not unreasonable to assume that his deficiency in the mode of expression contributed to the inaccuracy of his statements. Directo is reprimanded. Directo. The above explanation lends itself to the suspicion that it was a mere afterthought. judging from the awkwardly -worded petition and even his compliance quite indicative of either carelessness or lack of proficiency in the handling of the English language. While a mere disclaimer of intent certainly cannot exculpate him. a motion to quash or recall the writ of execution. he stated that Marcelo Daquis never informed the petitioner of the case involved. 14. Heirs of Elias Lorilla v. including Elias Lorilla (now deceased) who had acted as sureties for the corporate debtors. honestly and totally unaware of any false allegation in the petition. PENTACAPITAL sought and obtained a writ of attachment on the real property of Elias. it turned out. (Although he wanted to convey that his knowledge of the civil case came only after the decision was issued). In his explanation. and also an opposition to the issuance of a writ of demolition. No. Alfredo Concepcion as substitute lawyer.) filed a complaint with the RTC for sum of money against Sanyu Machineries Agencies. debt. however. the action has to be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff thereafter presenting his claim as a money claim in the settlement of the estate of the deceased defendant. the records do not show if any notice of death was filed by Atty. Apparently.the levy. Despite receipt of a copy of the decision.” The RTC denied the motion as the case had become final. The claim becomes a mere incident in the testamentary or intestate proceedings of the deceased where the whole matter may be fully terminated jointly with the settlement and distribution of the estate. A judgment may be annulled for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law. and that the suggested remedy was a petition for its annulment. absent such notice. Concepcion filed no appeal. Concepcion to serve notice on the court and the adverse parties regarding his client’s death binds herein petitioners as much as the client himself could be so bound. the action “shall be dismissed to be presented in the manner especially provided in these rules. or interest therein. 5262 before the Makati Court. absent any . Petitioner Heirs filed a motion to quash the writ of execution arguing that Elias passed away 1 YEAR and 3 MONTHS before the Court rendered the decision. Judgment was rendered in favor of PENTACAPITAL. Atty. and thus a writ of execution was issued. The CA denied their appeal. Lorilla’s counsel failed in his duty to promptly inform the court of the death of his client. thus the case should have been dismissed insofar as Elias in concerned pursuant to Section 21. Held: Section 21 of Rule 3 provides that upon the defendant’s death. The trial court could not be expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of Lorilla. But while petitioners were not properly substituted for Elias Lorilla as defendants. it shall be dismissed to be presented in the manner especially provided in these rules. for all notices and orders of the court were sent to Lorilla’s counsel of record. Rule 3 of the ROC which provides “When the action is for recovery of money.” Petitioners argue that this manner is provided for in Sections 5 and 7 of Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court. Issue: Whether the respondent appellate court erred and gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ action for annulment of judgment of the RTC and deprived petitioner of their right to due process. In the present case. negligence and mistakes of his counsel. neither the Makati Court nor PENTACAPITAL were made aware of the death of Elias Lorilla. Thus. Alfredo Concepcion. counsel of record of Elias Lorilla in Civil Case No. The failure of Atty. and the defendant dies before final judgment in the Court of First Instance. Neither could the petitioners have been made aware of the trial court’s judgment adverse to their father. as the Rules require. who did not bother to inform the parties concerned of Elias Lorilla’s death. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a client is bound by the conduct. As contemplated in Section 21 of Rule 3. Issue: Whether the appeal filed by the defendant was correctly dismissed for failure of the counsel to appear at the pretrial. Counsel lacks foresight. then it would have been quite easy for the lawyer to have asked that man to stay around and tell the judge or the clerk or the branch deputy clerk of court of his predicament. respondent’s judgment debtor in another case. Luciano Saulog v. But Custombuilt posted a P1. But. The judge dismissed the appeal and revived the city court’s judgment. he himself could have as easily told the judge. Rules of Court). Failure to prosecute is a ground . Petitioner prayed that the 3 defendants pay jointly and severally. or either clerk. they claimed that the counsel was present on that day but he had to leave posthaste because he was summoned home suddenly as his pregnant wife was having labor pains which were a cause for alarm because his wife was due for confinement. On appeal. If the client were not present. 17. Rather. This paved the way for the execution sale of said properties. Plaintiff filed a thirdparty claim thereon to stave off levy. in fact. Those properties consisted of a piano with a stool. they were not parties to the case. If one representing his client—a corporation—was present. or anyone for that matter. for as far as the trial court was concerned. No. He failed to do anyone of these.200bond issued by Northwest in favor of the City Sheriff. Held: Yes. Custombuilt appealed to the CFI. 1968) Facts: Petitioner filed a case for damages and attorney’s fees against respondents as the caused to be sold on execution certain properties belonging to him which he leased to one Adriano Go. the bailiff. November 15. 1. a more obvious and grievous transgression of due process. it could not be said that petitioners were deprived of due process of law.R. Both client and counsel must appear at the pretrial (Sec. The city court directed the defendants to pay damages and attorney’s fees. respondent’s counsel was in the courtroom but left before the case was called. the interpreter. His wife gave birth only after 5 days later. et al. Or. To rule otherwise would be. Failure of the client to appear is a ground for dismissal. then the case just the same would have been dismissed. If this were true. of his inability to wait for the pretrial. the point is that allegedly someone summoned said attorney to go back home. This is mandatory. the pattern of conduct discloses a desire to delay disposal of the present case. or the adverse counsel. (G. the court stenographer. When pretrial was had. L29612.notice of his death. Rule 20. All of these facts point to one conclusion: lack of interest on the part of appellant to defend itself against the complaint. The petition for relief was filed after 4 days from notice of judgment. counsel could have easily left word for the former to tell the judge that he was suddenly summoned to his home. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corp. Respondent filed a petition for relief but was denied. and a rattan dinner and sala set. Held: Yes. or permit a game of "monte" to be played in said house. It was found that respondent stood charged as counsel for Iñigo Hernandez who was charged with a violation of an ordinance for having willfully and unlawfully encouraged. . There is a clear violation of the lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. It was only at the conclusion of the hearing that counsel for the respondent protested against the evidence which had been receìved by Judge Diaz being taken into account against him. against Pascual Santos. and as a member of the bar. tolerated and permitted to be played a game of chance and hazard commonly known as "monte". In a memorandum filed with the court the respondent has protested against the irregularity of the investigation and has asked for exoneration. Respondent filed an answer denying the charge and requested that he be given an opportunity to present evidence in support of his defense. 20. for violating his oath of office by deceiving the court and consenting a falsehood to be committed. Santos was required to answer the charges which he did by denying them. Santos violated his oath of office by deceiving the court and consenting a falsehood to be committed. Jose Topacio Nueno v. In this instance. a member of the municipal board of the City of Manila. The Judge made a report to the Secretary of the Interior recommending the removal from office of Santos who had openly ran a club for gambling purposes (Circulo Nacionalista Consolidado Club) and had taken part in the games. Respondent called Iñigo Hernandez as his witness and testified in his own behalf. The report of the Solicitor General concludes with the recommendation that disciplinary action be taken against the respondent. when the lawyer consents to the doing of a falsehood and deceives the court by having an accused plead guilty to an offense which he had not committed. under the circumstances of the case. Issue: Whether Atty. In the course of the investigation a complaint was filed by Jose Topacio Nueno. another member of the municipal board. it being alleged that the latter had interested himself in prohibited games. Respondent attorney consented to the doing of a falsehood and deceived the court when he had an accused plead guilty to an offense which he had not committed. who entered a plea of guilty for Hernandez although he knew that the latter was a mere waiter in said house and did not encourage. The background of the administrative investigation showing the respondent's connection with prohibited games. Pascual Santos Facts: Judge Anacleto Diaz of the Court of First Instance was made a special investigator of conditions in the city government of Manila. wherein money and other things of value were played for. tolerate. the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.for dismissal of the appeal and revival of the judgment of the city court under Section 9. can only be taken into consideration in so far as it relates to the precise charge laid against him.