Edres, Iman A.

Canon 4
(Competence and Diligence)

notes by imanskyy charlungs

1. Burbe v. Magulta AC 5713

2. Batangueno Human Resources v. Atty. Precy De Jesus AC 13433

3. Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. CA GR 123698

4. Taghoy v. Tecson III, AC 12446

5. Credito v Sabio AC 4920

6. Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal AC 11641

7. New Sampaguita Builder Construction, Inc. v. Philippine National Bank

GR 148753

8. Philippine Suburban Dev. Corp. v. Court of Appeals GR L-33448

9. Alcantara v. Salas AC 3989

10. The Heirs of Late Sps. Reyes v. Atty. Ronald Brillantes AC 9594
 Burbe v. Magulta AC 5713

Doctrine: After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to
both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client
relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary consideration.

Facts:
Burbe was introduced to Atty. Alberto C. Magulta in his office. He agreed to legally
represent Burbe in a money claim and possible civil case against certain parties for
breach of contract. Atty. Magulta prepared for Burbe the demand letter and other
legal documents for which services Burbe had accordingly paid. Upon failing to secure
a settlement, however, Atty. Magulta advised him to file a complaint which Magulta
subsequently drafted. Burbe deposited 25, 000 to Atty. Magulta as filing fee of
the complaint.

Burbe was then informed by Atty. Magulta that the complaint had been filed in court
and he would soon be notified of its progress. However, Burbe received no notice
from the court or Atty. Magulta in the following months. On the times he went to
Atty. Magulta’s office, he would be told to just wait or that the Clerk of Court had
not acted on his case yet.

Sensing that he was given the run-around by Atty. Magulta, Burbe personally verified
the progress of his case from the Office of the Clerk of Court. He was told that
there was no record at all of a case filed by Atty. Magulta on his behalf.

Burbe confronted Atty. Magulta but he still continued to lie and make excuses, and
only upon showing Atty. Magulta the certification, did he admit that he had not filed
the complaint at all because he had used the filing fee for his own purpose. To
appease Burbe’s feelings, Atty. Magulta reimbursed him of the amounts he had paid.
 Respondent’s defense:
- vehemently denied the allegations of complainant "for being totally outrageous and
baseless”; knows complainant as a kumpadre of a law partner
- he was never paid for his services by complainant, hence, no lawyer-client
relationship
- complainant was told that the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance
fee, and that he should give the filing fee later
- respondent averred that he never inconvenienced, mistreated or deceived
complainant, and if anyone had been shortchanged by the undesirable events, it was he

IBP’s Recommendation:

The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited
by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused
complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part,
unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent
of part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the
respondent for his misappropriation of said funds. Thus, to impress upon the respondent the
gravity of his offense, it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year.

Alleged acts of
Issue: respondent lawyer:
Whether or not Atty. Magulta (a) his non-filing of the
Complaint on behalf of his
misappropriated his client’s funds?
client
Whether or not a lawyer- client (b) his appropriation for
relationship existed despite lack of himself of the money given fo r
the filing fee
payment of Atty. Magulta’s
professional services ?
Ruling:
The Court agrees with the Commission on Bar Discipline IBP’s recommendation.

Lawyers must exert their best efforts and ability in the prosecution or the defense of
the client’s cause.

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment complainant
asked respondent for legal advice regarding the former’s business. To constitute
professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
handle the case for which his service had been sought.

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not
neglect legal matters entrusted to them.

Members of the bar often forget that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.

The practice of law is a noble calling in which emolument is a byproduct, and the highest
eminence may be attained without making much money.

Respondent violated the rule that lawyers must be scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted to them in their professional capacity.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in
trust all moneys of their clients and properties that may come into their possession.

Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional
ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision.

Canons violated:

Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provides that lawyers should not
neglect legal matters entrusted to them.

Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in
trust all moneys of their clients and properties
that may come into their possession.
 Batangueno Human Resources v. Atty.
Precy De Jesus AC 13433
Doctrine: Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. A
lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of
his client, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession.
Facts:
BHRI, a recruitment agency, alleged that it deployed several persons to Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates, under a one-year contract duly approved by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA), and that before the lapse of their contract, they were
repatriated to the Philippines. Said employees filed a case before the NLRC with the assistance
of counsel, seeking to be paid of the unexpired portion of their contracts.

When BHRI perused the employees' Position Paper and attachments, it noticed that the
employees' POEA-approved contract attached to the Position Paper was altered. In
particular, Clause 16 of the contract — which allows the termination of the employment
contract before the expiration of the one-year period, provided that the project covered
by such contract has been completed — had been unduly erased.

Respondent conceded that the deletion of Clause 16 was done surreptitiously but
without her permission, and that she apologized to BHRI and its counsel for the said deletion.
She likewise admitted that: (a) the position papers she submitted in the labor case were
outsourced from pleaders she contracted; (b) she did not properly supervise said pleaders in
drafting the same; and (c) she met with the repatriated workers only once prior to the filing of
the position paper, and that it was just a mere short conversation for around ten minutes.
 Respondent also claimed that the preparation of the position papers of her
clients, including herein repatriated employees, was outsourced to nonlawyers, and that
she learned only of the issue of the omission of Clause 16 in the Reply to the position
paper filed by BHRI's lawyer.

IBP’s Report and Recommendation:

Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended that respondent be found

administratively liable for violation of Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 and Rule 18.02, Canon
18 of the CPR, and that, accordingly, she be suspended from the practice of law for a period
of at least one year.

Moreover, the IC found that respondent likewise violated Rules 9.01 and 9.02,
Canon 9 of the CPR when she admitted that she outsourced the drafting of the Pleadings to
nonlawyers.

IBP Board of Governors:

-decreased respondent's penalty of suspension from the practice of law to
three months. In mitigating respondent's liability, the IBP-BG observed that
she has no prior administrative case, and that she had shown remorse and had
apologized to BHRI for her infraction

Acts committed by respondent lawyer:

Issue: a) her law office has a template for Pleadings in

labor cases depending on the kind of labor
whether or not respondent Complaint, and that even nonlawyers or underbar
can prepare the Pleadings;
should be held (b) due to high volumes of cases, she was not able to

administratively liable for the properly supervise the outsourced cases, including
the subject labor case;
acts complained of? (c) she met her clients in the subject labor case only
once and for more or less than ten minutes; and
(d) she was not able to go through the Position
Paper before signing it
Ruling:

The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendation of the IBP, with
modification as to the penalty imposed.

Respondent miserably failed to comply with Canon 18 of the CPR by committing the
acts she has admitted. When a lawyer takes a client's cause, they covenant that they
will exercise due diligence in protecting his or her rights. The failure to exercise that
degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such
lawyer unworthy of the Trust reposed in them by their client and makes them
answerable not just to his or her client but also to the legal profession, the courts and
society.

Respondent’s act of signing her clients' Position Paper is essentially a certification

from her that she has read it, that she knew it to be meritorious, and it was not for the
purpose of delaying the case. Thus, by admitting that she was not the one who drafted
the Position Paper and merely signed the same, she has committed a violation of this
rule — an act of falsehood which is a ground for subjecting her to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, by admitting that she merely "outsourced" the drafting of the Position
Paper to nonlawyers (who are most likely paid for such service), respondent likewise
violated Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR when she allowed nonlawyers to
engage in unauthorized practice of law

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Precy C. De Jesus (respondent) is

found GUILTY of violating Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9, and Rules 18.02 and 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six months, and is STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same offense or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
Canons violated:

CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE

AND DILIGENCE.
xxx xxx xxx
RULE 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
RULE 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his Negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

CANON 9 — A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST

IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
RULE 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the
bar in good standing.
RULE 9.02 — A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law.
 Eternal Gardens Memorial Park
Corporation v. CA GR 123698
Doctrine: While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal
in the defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are officers of
the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

Facts:

Private-respondents spouses Seelin filed a complaint against Central Dyeing and Finishing
Corporation for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of a TCT before the RTC. The
RTC ruled in favor of them. A writ of execution was thereby issued. A motion for an
immediate writ of possession was instituted by the spouses but was opposed by herein
petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation contending that it is not submitting
to the jurisdiction of the trial court; that it is completely unaware of the suit between
private respondents and Central Dyeing; that it is the true and registered owner of the lot
having bought the same from Central Dyeing; and that it was a buyer in good faith.

The trial court granted private respondents' motion. Another Order was issued by the trial
court holding that the judgment was binding on petitioner, being the successor-in-interest
of defendant Central Dyeing pursuant to Rule 39. After a series of legal maneuvers
orchestrated by Eternal Gardens, CA and SC ultimately affirmed the ruling in favor of the
Seelin Spouses.

It must be noted that this is the second time Eternal Gardens assailed the execution
rendered by the RTC and this controversy has dragged on for 17 years.
 Act complained of:
Issue: -counsel assisting petitioner in
delaying the execution of the
Whether or not the petition be
judgment by repeatedly
given merit and the execution of assailing it without legal
the judgment be declared unjust standing

and illegal?

Ruling:

The petition must fail.

It is a settled rule that once a court renders a final judgment, all the issues between or
among the parties ' before it are deemed resolved and its judicial functions with respect
to any matter related to the controversy litigated come to an end.

This case has again delayed the execution of a final judgment for seventeen (17) years
to the prejudice of the private respondents. In the meantime that petitioner has
thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has long been going on, so that by
the time this case is finally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled with
tombstones, leaving nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property.
This is a mockery of justice.

While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the
defense of their client's right, they should not forget that they are officers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice. They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends
of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes.
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper
administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions
that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened
enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a
case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already
congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by
commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the
courts.

Canon violated (no specific canon mentioned in the case):

Section 4 of Canon 4 (CPRA):

Diligence in all undertakings. – A lawyer shall observe diligence in all professional

undertakings, and shall not cause or occasion delay in any legal matter before any court,
tribunal, or other agency.
 Taghoy v. Tecson III, AC 12446
Doctrine: Lawyers are not obliged to advocate for every person who requests to be their
client. However, once they agree to take up the client's cause, they owe fidelity to such
cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to them. Lawyers who
undertake an action are expected to attend to their client's cause until it becomes final
and executory.

Facts:

Complainants engaged the legal services of Atty. Constantine Tecson III as counsel in an
ejectment case filed against them by a certain Rayos. They paid him P5,000.00 to file a
motion for reconsideration. After evaluating the case, Atty. Tecson opined that Rayos'
transfer certificate of title (TCT) was questionable and advised complainants to file a
separate case to annul Rayos' TCT. The complainants agreed to file the separate case and
paid Atty. Tecson a total of P71,000.00, representing partial payment of the professional
fees.

In the meantime, Atty. Tecson failed to file the complainants' position paper in the ejectment
case despite the court's order, as well as the appeal memorandum, which caused the dismissal
of the complainants' appeal to the ejectment case. Allegedly, Atty. Tecson assured the
complainants that he filed the necessary pleadings, but this proved to be false upon verification
with the court. Atty. Tecson refused to refund the amount paid by the complainants which
prompted the complainants to file the instant disbarment case.

IBP- CBD:

-Atty. Tecson disregarded his duty to his client in violation of Canon 18, Rules 18.01, 18.02,
18.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he did not file the
necessary pleadings in the ejectment and annulment of title cases. The IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Tecson be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
IBP- BOG
-modified IBP-CBD’s recommendation from 1 year to 2 years suspension and to return 76k
-Tecson moved for reconsideration; already patched up with complainants; already returned
76k also (IBP-BOG granted motion)
-suspension back to 1 year, order to return 76k deleted
-Tecson’s defense: professional service limited to the filing of TCT annulment; did not include
representation in the ejectment case

Acts committed by counsel:

-failure to file complainants’
Issue:
position paper
Whether or not Atty. Tecson
-failure to file appeal memorandum which
violated his duty when he failed to
caused the dismissal of complainants’
file the annulment of the case
appeal
after receiving his professional -failure to file the annulment of TCT
fees?

Ruling:

The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governor's findings but modify the penalty.

Lawyers are not obliged to advocate for every person who requests to be their client.
However, once they agree to take up the client's cause, they owe fidelity to such cause
and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to them.11 Lawyers who
undertake an action are expected to attend to their client's cause until it becomes final
and executory.

Atty. Tecson failed to measure up to these standards. He neglected to file his clients'
position paper and appeal memorandum in the ejectment case.
 In Canoy v. Atty. Ortiz, the Court held that the lawyer's failure to
file the necessary pleading is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the
CPR, which requires that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable."Concomitant with this duty is Canon 17, which
provides that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."

To be sure, Atty. Tecson did not exert any effort to ensure that his clients' cause will
not be prejudiced. His failure to do so led to the dismissal of his clients' appeal. Atty.
Tecson breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, as
provided under Canon 18 of the CPR.

Furthermore, Atty. Tecson violated his duty when he did not file the annulment of title
case after receiving his professional fees. He agreed to represent complainants and
to file the case.

the Court SUSPENDS respondent Atty. Constantine Tecson III

from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months,
effective upon the receipt of this Decision. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.

Canons violated:
Rule 18.03 of the CPR, which requires that "a lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable."Concomitant with this duty is Canon 17, which
provides that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
Credito v Sabio AC 4920
Doctrine: Inattention of lawyers to basic procedural requirements constitutes a neglect
of professional duty and a violation of their Oath. It betrays their lack of zeal and
dedication to the protection of their clients’ cause. Because of neglectful acts resulting
in prejudice to the latter, imprudent counsels should be administratively sanctioned.

Facts:

Complainants were employees/laborers of Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company (Biscom),

a sugar mill operating in Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. They charged Biscom of illegal
dismissal. Respondent Atty. Sabio represented them in that case.

The labor arbiter promulgated a Decision, ordering the reinstatement of complainants to

their former jobs and the payment of back wages amounting to ₱9,679,133.38.
Biscom appealed the case to the NLRC in Cebu City, which reversed the labor arbiter’s
Decision and dismissed the Complaint.

Complainants, led by Leopoldo Credito, asked respondent to elevate the case to the
Supreme Court (SC) by way of a Petition for Certiorari. To defray the expenses
incurred in filing the Petition and other incidental expenses, they allegedly gave
respondent money collected from their members (each of whom had contributed from
₱30 to ₱100). Unfortunately, the Petition was dismissed for failure to pay the proper
docket and filing fees and for lack of the required certification against forum shopping.
Atty. Sabio allegedly kept this dismissal from their knowledge for more than three years.
Respondent’s defense:
-did not receive said amounts from complainants; docket fees were paid by
Money Order
-to remedy lapses, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied; accordingly
due to no compelling reason to reconsider dismissal; not because filed out of time
 -respondent previously suspended from the practice of law

Acts committed by counsel:

Issue: 1. failure to pay proper docket and

filing fees
Whether or not
respondent was negligent
in his duty as [Link] to attach certificate
complainant’s counsel? against forum shopping

IBP Commissioner:
-respondent guilty of simple
Ruling:
negligence, as well as illegal and
unjust actuations as a The Court agrees with the IBP that Atty.
Sabio should be disciplined, but not with a
practicing lawyer. The
mere warning. Under the circumstances,
Investigation Report of the IBP a one-year suspension from the practice
of law is warranted.
fact-finding committee found
that he had been remiss in the Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that lawyers owe
performance of his professional
fidelity to the cause of their client and
duties as counsel to must therefore be always mindful of the
complainants trust and confidence reposed in them.
Under Canon 18, they are mandated to
serve their client with competence and
IBP Board of Directors; diligence. Specifically, they are not to
"neglect a legal matter entrusted to
-concurred Commissioner San [them], and [their] negligence in
Juan’s finding of negligence, but connection therewith shall render [them]
liable." Additionally, they are required to
modified the recommended keep their client informed of the status
penalty of two-year suspension of the latter’s cases and to respond
within a reasonable time to requests for
from the practice of law by information. Even before joining the bar,
reducing it to a "warning" that a lawyers subscribe to an Oath to conduct
themselves "with all good fidelity as well
similar offense in the future to the courts as to their clients."
would be dealt with more
severely
 CANONS VIOLATED:
the dismissal of complainants’ Petition
before the Supreme Court was due to Canon 17- lawyers owe
the failure of respondent to pay the fidelity to the cause of
total revised docket and other legal
fees and to attach the required
their client and must
certification on forum shopping. He therefore be always
attempted to rectify those procedural mindful of the trust and
lapses by filing a Motion for
Reconsideration confidence reposed in
them
his claim that he could not have
received contributions from his 200 or
so clients in the labor case, because
only 40 had signed the Petition, skirts
the issue that he had received money to
defray docket and other legal fees.
Whether the contributions came from
40 or 200 people does not refute the Canon 18- lawyers shall
allegation that enough money was not neglect a legal
entrusted to him for the filing of the
Petition. Yet, he failed to pay the Court mat t er ent rus t ed t o
the required amount on time them, and their
complainants’ averments that negligence in connection
respondent kept them in the dark on therewith shall render
the dismissal of the Petition are
supported by the evidence on record.
them liable.

it is clear from SC Circular No. 58-95

that Atty. Sabio was indeed suspended Atty. Salvador T. Sabio is hereby
from the practice of law for six months found guilty of violating Canons 17
in connection with AM No.
and 18 of the Canons of Professional
RTJ-93-1033. Accordingly, he was
"warned that a more severe sanction Responsibility and is SUSPENDED
shall be imposed should he commit
from the practice of law for a period
another administrative offense."
of one year from his receipt of this
Decision, with a STERN WARNING
that similar acts will be dealt with even
more severely.
Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal
AC 11641

Facts:

Marilu C. Turla (Turla) filed a Verified Complaint against the respondent, Atty. Jose
Mangaser Caringal (Caringal). Turla is the petitioner in Special Proceedings No.
Q09-64479 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222,
wherein Atty. Caringal is the counsel for the oppositor.

Turla discovered that Atty. Caringal had not attended the required Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) seminars for the Second (MCLE II) and Third (MCLE III)
Compliance Periods. Turla confirmed such information when she received a Certification
issued by the MCLE Office. Yet, Atty. Caringal signed the pleadings and motions in
several cases on which he indicated the following information after his signature and other
personal details: "MCLE Exemption II & III Rec. No. 000659126 Pasig 8.10.10." As it
turned out, the receipt Atty. Caringal pertained to was not for his MCLE exemption, but
for his payment of the MCLE non-compliance fee

Consequently, in her Complaint, Turla charged Atty. Caringal with (1) failure to take the
MCLE seminars for the MCLE II and III compliance periods as required under Bar
Matter (BM) No. 850; and (2) violation of his lawyer's oath not to do any falsehood.

Atty. Caringal, in his Answer, countered that Turla's Complaint was a form of harassment
since as the counsel for the oppositor in Special Proceedings No. Q09-64479, he had
filed motions in the said case for Turla to undergo DNA testing to prove her filiation with
the deceased over whose estate she was claiming rights.
Upon verification, Atty. Caringal was informed that he still had some units left before the
completion of his MCLE II. Atty. Caringal paid the non-compliance fees for his MCLE II
and III in the total amount of PhP2,000.00.

Acts committed by counsel:

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Caringal be
-indicated that he was MCLE exempt
suspended from the practice of
in the pleadings and motions he filed,
law due to his failure to comply
although in fact he was not
with the MCLE requirements and
-placed his clients at risk, given that
because of his misrepresentation
pleadings with such false information
that he had an MCLE
produce no legal effect
exemption?

Ruling:

Yes, the directive to comply with the MCLE requirements is essential for the legal
profession, as enshrined in BM No. 850. The purpose is "to ensure that throughout [the
IBP members'] career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law."

Turla was able to secure a Certification dated August 2, 2010 from the MCLE Office that
Atty. Caringal , as of said date, had not yet complied with the requirements for MCLE II
and III. compliance periods. Despite being confronted with such Certification by Turla, Atty.
Caringal continued to sign and submit pleadings and motions before various courts in
several cases, indicating therein that he was "exempt" from the MCLE requirements and
referring to the Official Receipt for his payment of the non-compliance fees.
Rule 13 of BM No. 850 lays down the consequences of failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements within the compliance period.

Section 12(c) to (e) of the MCLE Implementing Rules further provide that a member who
is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee
of P1,000.00 and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP by the IBP Board
of Governors upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court shall apply.

A a non- compliant lawyer must pay a non-compliance fee of PhP 1,000.00 and still
comply with the MCLE requirements within a sixty (60)-day period, otherwise, he/she
will be listed as a delinquent IBP member after investigation by the IBP-CBD and
recommendation by the MCLE Committee. The non-compliance fee is a mere penalty
imposed on the lawyer who fails to comply with the MCLE requirements within the
compliance period and is in no way a grant of exemption from compliance to the lawyer
who thus paid.

It is worthy to note that Atty. Caringal could not be declared a delinquent member as the
sixty (60)-day period for compliance did not commence to run. There was no showing
that he was ever issued and that he had actually received a Non-Compliance Notice as
required by the MCLE Implementing Rules. In addition, by March 11, 2011, he had already
complied with the MCLE requirements for MCLE II and III compliance periods, albeit
belatedly.

Nevertheless, Atty. Caringal is being held liable for knowingly and willfully misrepresenting
in the pleadings he had signed and submitted to the courts that he was exempted from
MCLE II and III.

Here, Atty. Caringal violated his sworn oath as a lawyer to "do no falsehood" as well as
the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
 C
an
o
When Atty. Caringal indicated that he was

n
s
vi
MCLE-exempt in the pleadings and

o
CANON 1 - A LAWYER

la
SHALL UPHOLD THE motions he filed, although in fact he was

te
d
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE not, he engaged in dishonest conduct which

:
LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR was also disrespectful of the courts.
LAW AND LEGAL Considering Atty. Caringal's willful
PROCESSES. statement of false MCLE details in his
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall
pleadings to the prejudice of his clients,
not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or aggravate, by his lack of diligence in fully
deceitful conduct. and promptly complying with the MCLE
requirements within the compliance period,
CANON 10 - A LAWYER
OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS and his seemingly defiant and unremorseful
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE attitude, the Court deems it apt to adopt
COURT. the recommendations of both the IBP
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer
shall not do any Board of Governors and the OBC, and
falsehood, nor consent to imposes upon Atty. Caringal the penalty of
the doing of any in court; suspension from the practice of law for
nor shall he mislead, or
three years.
allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.

CANON 17 - A LAWYER
OWES FIDELITY TO THE The instant petition is
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND DENIED. Atty. Jose
HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF Mangaser Caringal is
THE TRUST AND SUSPENDED from the
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN practice of law for three
HIM. (3) years.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER
SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
 New Sampaguita Builder Construction, Inc.
v. Philippine National Bank GR 148753

Doctrine: Courts have the authority to strike down or to modify provisions in promissory
notes that grant the lenders unrestrained power to increase interest rates, penalties and
other charges at the latter’s sole discretion and without giving prior notice to and securing
the consent of the borrowers.

Facts:

Board Resolution was approved by Petitioner NSBCI [1)] authorizing the

company to apply for or secure a commercial loan with the PNB in an aggregate amount of P8.0M, under
such terms agreed by the Bank and the NSBCI, using or mortgaging the real estate properties registered in the
name of its President and Chairman of the Board [Petitioner] Eduardo R. Dee as collateral; [and] 2)
authorizing [petitioner-spouses] to secure the loan and to sign any [and all] documents which may be required
by [Respondent] PNB[,] and that petitioner-spouses shall act as sureties or co-obligors who shall be jointly and
severally liable with [Petitioner] NSBCI for the payment of any [and all] obligations.

Resolution 77 approved for P8M loan broken down into a revolving credit line of P7.7M and an unadvised
line of P0.3M for additional operating and working capital to mobilize its various construction projects. This
loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over several parcels of land as well as by the joint and several
signatures of Petitioners who signed as accommodation mortgagors since all the collaterals were owned by
them and registered in their names. NSCBI likewise executed several promissory notes with various amounts &
signed the Credit Agreement for the revolving credit line and the unadvised line.

Later on, [Petitioner] NSBCI failed to comply with its obligations under the promissory notes.

NSBCI sent a letter to PNB requesting for a 90-day extension for the payment of interests and restructuring
of its loan for another term. NSCBI subsequently tendered payment to PNB of 3 checks worth P1M. PNB’s
bank manager wrote to Dee informing him that NSB’s proposal was acceptable provided that the total payment
should be different. Dee wrote back the PNB branch manager reiterating his proposals for the settlement of
NSB’s past due loan (P7M). Upon presentment, 2 of the checks were dishonored by the drawee bank and
returned due to a “stop payment” order from petitioner. PNB wrote to Dee informing him to make good the
dishonored checks or else consequences will arise.
 Petitioners nevertheless failed to pay their loan obligations and as a result, PNB filed with the Provincial
Sheriff of Pangasinan at Lingayen a Petition for Sale under Act 3135. The Provincial Deputy Sheriff
Cresencio F. Ferrer foreclosed the real estate mortgage and sold at public auction the mortgaged property,
with PNB as the highest bidder. PNB later sent a letter informing them of the sale of their mortgaged
property at public auction. Petitioners failed to redeem their property within the 1 year period so PNB
executed a deed of absolute sale consolidating title to the properties.

Later on, PNB informed NSB that the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to cover its total claim of
P12.5M and thus demanded that NSB to pay the deficiencies. plus interest and other charges.

Petitioners refused to pay the deficiency claim which compelled PNB to institute the
instant complaint for collection of deficiency.

Ruling:

Issue:
Petitioner NSBCI’s loan accounts with respondent appear
to be bloated with some iniquitous imposition of interests, Whether or not the loan
penalties, other charges and attorney’s fees. accounts are bloated?

The attorney’s fees were also reduced by the appellate

note: there are many issues mentioned
court from 10 percent to 1 percent of in the case but I think not related to
the total indebtedness. First, there was no extreme difficulty our subject

in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, as

this proceeding was merely administrative in nature and This Court affirms the equitable reduction in attorney’s
did not involve a court litigation contesting the proceedings fees. These are not an integral part of the cost of
prior to the auction sale. Second, the attorney’s fees were borrowing, but arise only when collecting upon the
exclusive of all stipulated costs and fees. Third, such fees Notes becomes necessary. The purpose of these fees
were in the nature of liquidated damages that did not inure is not to give respondent a larger compensation for
to respondent’s salaried counsel. the loan than the law
already allows, but to protect it against any future loss
or damage by being compelled to retain counsel – in-
house or not -- to institute judicial proceedings for the
collection of its
Courts have the power to determine their credit.
reasonableness based on quantum meruit and
to reduce the amount thereof if excessive.
Philippine Suburban Dev. Corp. v. Court of
Appeals GR L-33448
Doctrine: Members of the bar are reminded that it is their inescapable duty to make of
record their correct address in all cases in which they are counsel for a suitor. It is doubly
painful if defeat is occasioned by the attorney's failure to receive notice because the latter
has changed the place of his law office without giving the proper notice therefor

Facts:

Petitioner was sentenced to pay private respondent the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages. Petitioner timely brought the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The
petitioner's counsel provided their address of record which was also the address used in the
lower court and were both petitioner and its counsel held office. When required to file the
printed record on appeal, he complied using the same address of record.

Meanwhile, petitioner's counsel transferred his law office but he did not file any formal notice
with respondent court of his change of address so that all notices to him could be sent to his
new address.

Respondent court sent by registered mail a notice to petitioner at its counsel's address or
record requiring it to file brief within 45 days from receipt of said notice, but the same was
not claimed.

The period for filing of petitioner’s brief lapsed without counsel having filed the same nor
having explained his failure to do so. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and final
judgment was entered.

Issue: Whether or not the pleadings filed by petitioner’s counsel with respondent court indicating in
one pleading his residence address and in another his new office address constitute sufficient, if not
substantial, compliance with the rules requiring notice of change of address of record of
counsel
 Acts committed
Ruling:
by counsel:
-failure to file notice of
No, notices to counsel should properly be sent to his
change of address
address of record in the absence of due notice to the
-failure to check
court of a change of address. The fact that counsel used a
different address in later pleadings "should not be taken as
periodically status of case
notice to the court of either a change of address or of
another address in addition to that which was already of Canons violated (not mentioned in
record. the case):

Counsel cannot presume that respondent court will take Section 3, Canon 4 (CPRA): xxx

cognizance of any other addresses that he may use in his A lawyer shall be punctual in all
appearances, submissions of
pleadings, or assume that a given address is his residence,
pleadings and documents before
for unless he files a notice of change of address, his
any court, tribunal or other
official address remains to be that of his address of
government agency, and all
record.
matters professionally referred by
the client, including meetings and
The lawyer is reminded that in his oath of office he other commitments.
solemnly declared that he 'will conduct' himself 'as a lawyer
accordingly to the best of his knowledge and discretion.' Section 6, Canon 4 (CPRA):
Too late. Experience indeed is a good teacher. To a lawyer,
though, it could prove very expensive. Duty to update the client. – A
lawyer shall regularly inform the
client of the status and the result
of the matter undertaken, and any

The petition is dismissed. The writ action in connection thereto, and

shall respond within a reasonable
of preliminary injunction heretofore
time to the client’s request for
issued is dissolved effective
information.
immediately upon promulgation
hereof
 Alcantara v. Salas AC 3989
Doctrine: The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only to those who possess and continue
to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are duty-bound to
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing. If the lawyer falls short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline the
lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion.

Facts:

Alcantara hired the services of Atty. Salas in filing a civil action for specific performance with
damages. Having lost in the trial court, Atty. Salas appealed to the CA. Allegedly, that was the last
time Alcantara heard from Atty. Salas. After such time, Alcantara received news that his appeal was
dismissed. He went to the CA and discovered that the CA issued a Resolution dismissing his appeal
due to non-filing of appellant's brief despite notice. The CA sent a notice to file brief twice and, in
both instances, the notices were returned unclaimed because the addressee has moved.

Alcantara informed Atty. Salas of the dismissal. However, Atty. Salas blamed Alcantara for not
checking the status of the case and having lost communication with him. Alcantara denied Atty.
Salas' allegation because the latter sent a messenger to claim a check worth P5,000.00.
Alcantara hired a new lawyer to continue his case to the Supreme Court, which rendered a final
decision unfavourable to him. Alcantara attributed the loss to Atty. Salas. Disappointed with his
previous counsel's actuations, Alcantara filed this complaint before the Court.

For his defense, Atty. Salas averred that it should have been the duty of the CA to send the
notices at his then current residential address as recorded in the two other cases that were
consolidated with a third case. Admittedly, he did not notify the CA of the change of address
in the third case.

IBP Commissioner:

Atty. Salas failed in his duty under the CPR, and it was crucial to his client's cause; recommended
a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for four months
IBP- BOG
-suspended Atty. Salas from the practice of law for two months, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely
-Atty. Salas moved for reconsideration
-suspended for two years instead Acts committed
by counsel:
-non-filing of brief in
the CA

Issue: -failure to file of notice

Whether or not Atty. Salas of change of address

committed gross negligence in

failing to file the appellant's brief in
the CA?

Ruling:

Atty Salas violated Rule 12.038 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The CPR
mandates a lawyer to submit a brief or memoranda when required by the court. A lawyer must also
inform the court, where he had appeared, of the change in his address in order to maintain the line
of communication with the court.

In addition to the IBP's finding of violation of Rule 12.03 of the CPR, the Court finds other
violations, such as Canons 17 and 18, and Rule 18.03 on a lawyer's duty to his/her client.

Atty. Salas admitted to not filing the appellant's brief in the CA and not updating the appellate
court of his then current mailing address.

It is crystal clear that the root cause of non-filing of appellant's brief was Atty. Salas' failure to
inform the CA of the change in his mailing address. Had he done so, he would have received the
CA's notices requiring him to file the appellant's brief.
Once a lawyer consents to defend the cause of Canons violated:
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
CANON 17 - A LAWYER
perform his duties to his client with utmost OWES FIDELITY TO THE
diligence. Nothing less can be expected from a CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND
member of the Philippine Bar. For having HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his THE TRUST AND
client, respondent did not serve his client with CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN
diligence and competence. His inexcusable HIM.
negligence on such matter renders him liable for
CANON 18 - A LAWYER
violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
Professional Responsibility.
WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
RULE 18.03 -A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal
Respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas is matter entrusted to him,
found GUILTY of violating Rule and his negligence in
12.03 of Canon 12, Canon 17, and connection therewith shall
Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code render him liable.
of Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for six (6) months, effective
upon the receipt of this decision. He
is STERNLY WARNED that a
Rule 12.03of the Code of
repetition of the same or similar act Professional Responsibility
will be dealt with more severely ( CPR ). The CPR mandates
a lawyer to submit a brief
or memoranda when
required by the court
 The Heirs of Late Sps. Reyes v. Atty. Ronald
Brillantes AC 9594
Doctrine: A lawyer who agrees to take up the cause of a client is expected to competently
and diligently protect the latter's rights in accordance with his or her duties under the CPR.
Failure to do so would render the lawyer answerable not only to his or her client, but also to
the legal profession, the courts, and society.

Facts:

The Estate of the late Justice Samuel F. Reyes and Mrs. Antonia C. Reyes (the Estate),
through its administrator, Dr. Samuel C. Reyes, Jr., filed a Complaint for quieting of title
against the Spouses Florencio and Felicitas Divina (collectively, Spouses Divina). Instead of
filing an answer, Spouses Divina filed a Motion to Dismiss. The RTC, however, denied the
motion for lack of merit.

Despite the denial of their motion, Spouses Divina still failed to file their answer to the
complaint within the period allowed by the Rules of Court. Then, they moved for
reconsideration of the Order. This prompted the Estate to file a motion to declare Spouses
Divina in default for their failure to file an answer to the Complaint within the reglementary
period. The RTC denied Spouses Divina's motion for reconsideration and declared them in
default. Hence, the Estate was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte.

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the Estate and cancelled the certificates of title in the
: names of the Spouses Divina. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto in its
Decision.
Meanwhile, Spouses Divina engaged the services of Atty. Brillantes in relation to the civil case.
Spouses Divina, through Atty. Brillantes, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment (Annulment
Petition) with the CA that prayed for the RTC Decision to be set aside on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. In the Annulment Petition, Atty. Brillantes argued that his clients'
belated receipt of the RTC Decision on August 9, 2011 prevented them from filing a timely appeal
thereof with the CA. The CA denied due course to the Annulment Petition and dismissed the case for
being effectively barred by the Rules.

In the disbarment complaint, Judge Reyes alleged that by filing the Annulment Petition with the CA,
Atty. Brillantes had grossly and deliberately violated: (a) the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR for
committing a falsehood and for abusing and misusing the procedural rules and (b) the rule on forum
shopping. Specifically, Judge Reyes pointed out that Spouses Divina received a copy of the RTC
Decision on November 27, 2007, and not on August 19, 2011 as Atty. Brillantes claimed in the
Annulment Petition. Judge Reyes argued that Atty. Brillantes had known such declaration to be a
falsity considering that he himself had attached copies of the RTC Decision and the CA Resolution
dated January 20, 2010 to the Annulment Petition that he filed before the CA. Judge Reyes
averred that the malicious actions of Atty. Brillantes hadcaused further delay in the settlement of the
Estate.
Act committed by counsel- filing of the Annulment Petition

In his Comment, Atty. Brillantes countered that Spouses Divina never disclosed to him that an appeal
of the RTC Decision had already been filed and resolved by the CA.27 He explained that he only
relied on the interview he conducted with his clients and the documents they submitted to him in order
to facilitate the drafting and the filing of the Annulment Petition, which he insisted was done in good
faith,

Ruling:
Yes, a lawyer who agrees to take up the cause

Issue: of a client is expected to competently and

diligently protect the latter's rights in accordance
Whether or not Atty.
with his or her duties under the CPR. Failure to
Brillantes should be held
do so would render the lawyer answerable not
administratively liable for his
only to his or her client, but also to the legal
actions?
profession, the courts, and society.
In the case, there is no question that Atty. Brillantes CANON 18 – A lawyer shall ser ve
his client with competence and
had failed to competently handle the case of his diligence.
clients to the detriment of herein complainants, the xxxx
Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not
courts, and the legal profession itself. His acts of handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
preparing and filing the Annulment Petition with the Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not
CA on the sole basis of his clients' misrepresentations neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him, and his negligence in
as to the actual status of the civil case shows just connection therewith shall render
exactly how far he fell short of his obligations as an him liable.

officer of the Court. Indeed, the fact that the civil CANON 10 – A lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to
case had been transferred from one lawyer to the court.
another does not excuse Atty. Brillantes from Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the
diligently studying the case, which obviously included doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the
reviewing the court records himself to determine,
Court to be misled by any artifice.
among others, the proper recourse to undertake to
CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert
protect his clients' cause. every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration
By fully relying on the inaccurate information divulged of justice.
xxxx
by his clients during their interview, he allowed himself Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not
to be deceived into filing the Annulment Petition. In so file multiple actions arising from
the same cause.
doing, he inadvertently committed a falsehood before xxxx
the CA, which also constitutes a breach of the Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the
Lawyer's Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
the CPR.

Canons violated
More than that, Atty. Brillantes effectively violated the
rule on forum shopping when he filed the Annulment The Court finds respondent Atty. Ronald L.
Brillantes GUILTY of violating the rule on
Petition with the CA in order to secure a favorable forum shopping, the Lawyer's Oath, and
Rule 10.01, Canon 10, Rules 12.02 and
judgment for his clients despite the finality of the CA 12.04, Canon 12, and Rules 18.02 and
Decision dated January 20, 2010, which upheld the 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the
RTC Decision in the civil case on appeal. This, too, is Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the
tantamount to a violation of Rules 12.02 and 12.04, practice of law for a period of six (6)
months, with a STERN WARNING that a
Canon 12 of the CPR. repetition of the same or similar acts shall
be dealt with more severely.