CASE
PRESENTATION IN
LEGAL ETHICS
PREPARED BY: VALDEZ, JULLIAN ALBERT M.
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
AND DANILO CRIS, respondents.
G.R. No. 71177, February 29, 1988
Facts:
• Danilo Cris (Respondent) filed a case for Illegal
Termination of his contract of employment with Petitioner,
Erectors, Inc., with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) on February 27, 1984
• Petitioner, as a defense, contended that Danilo Cris was
estopped from questioning the termination since he freely
and voluntarily received his termination pay.
Facts:
• POEA issued a decision adverse to the Petitioner, ruling in favor of
Danilo Cris
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents
ERECTORS, INC. and SOCIETE AUXILLAIRE D'ENTERPRISES
(S.A.E.) jointly and severally, to pay the complainant, DANILO CRIS
the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX
DOLLARS AND SIXTY SIX CENTS ($ 7,166.6), or its equivalent in
Philippine Currency at the time of actual payment, representing the
unpaid salaries for the unexpired term of complainant's contract."
Facts:
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC,
but was treated as an appeal and was dismissed “for having
been filed out of time” since the period for filing is within
ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of the decision
• Petitioner, through counsel, alleged that the respondent
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
the case and that the filing of the motion for
reconsideration was seasonably filed.
Facts:
• Counsels for the petitioner cited that even though
the filing of the case took fifteen (15) calendar
days, there were only ten (10) working days and
five (5) non-working and legal holidays between
October 25, 1984 and November 09, 1984
• Counsel for the petitioner cited the following
provisions, allegedly of the 1984 POEA rules and
procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and Rule
XXV, sec. 2 supporting their claim:
Rule XXV
Section 2. Finality of Decision, Order or Award — all
decisions, orders or award shall become final after the
lapse of ten (10) working days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the parties and no appeal has been perfected
within same period.
• Counsel for the petitioner cited the following
provisions, allegedly of the 1984 POEA rules and
procedures, specifying Rule XXIV, sec. 1, and Rule
XXV, sec. 2 supporting their claim:
RULE XXIV
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration. — The aggrieved
party may within ten (10) working days from receipt of
the decision, order or resolution of the Administration,
may file for a motion for reconsideration; otherwise, the
decision shall be final and executory (Emphasis
supplied) 4
Facts:
• However, These cited rules do not exist. Nowhere
in any law or rules relative to the POEA may the
above provisions be found.
Issue/s:
• Whether or not the NLRC committed a grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the appeal of the petitioners
• Whether or not the counsels for petitioner should be
held liable for violating Rules 10.01 and 10.02, Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
• The court ruled that:
1. NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing their motion for reconsideration based on
Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on
Overseas Employment (POEA/MOLE):
• Book VII, Rule 5, of the 1984 Rules and Regulations on
Overseas Employment
“Section 1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR
APPEAL. The aggrieved party may, within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of the decision, order or
resolution file a motion for reconsideration which shall
specify in detail the particular errors and objections,
otherwise the decision shall be final and executory. Such
motion for reconsideration shall be treated as an appeal
as provided in this Rule otherwise the same shall not be
entertained.”
Ruling:
• The court ruled that:
2. It is obvious that the counsels for the petitioner
deliberately tried to mislead this court if only to
suit their client’s ends.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent
the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law
a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Ruling:
• The Counsels for the petitioner are also
admonished for foisting a non-existent rule with
the warning that repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ruling:
• Although the court did not mention of any
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility since it was not yet implemented at
the time, their acts could be taken as an example
for the violation of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by misleading the
court in citing non-existent laws.
MICHAEL RUBY, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and ATTY.
RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 10558, February 23, 2015
Facts:
• Michael Ruby (Complainant) filed a complaint with the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
• Ruby alleged that he and his mother, Felicitas Ruby
Bihla, engaged the services of the respondents in
connection with a case for cancellation and nullification
of deeds of donation. pursuant to the retainer
agreement dated August 29, 2009
• August 29, 2009 - Complainant and Felicitas paid
Php 100,000.00 as an acceptance fee and Php
70,000.00 upon signing of the agreement and the Php
30,000.00 to be paid after the hearing on the prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Also
agreed to pay Php 5,000.00 as appearance fee for
every hearing which was subsequently reduced to Php
4,000.00
• September 15, 2009 - Complainant gave Atty. Espejo
Php 50,000.00 as filing fee payment.
• September 16, 2009 – Atty. Espejo filed the complaint
for nullification and cancellation of deeds of donation
with the RTC of Quezon City Branch 219. Actual filing
fee only amounted to Php 7,561.00 and failed to
account for the excess despite several demand letters.
• September 23, 2009 – Atty. Espejo asked the
complainant to give the remaining Php 30,000.00 to
Atty. Bayot even though the original condition for the
surrender of the remaining balance should be after the
hearing for the TRO issuance was completed.
Complainant gave Php 8,000.00 as partial payment and
Php 4,000.00 as an appearance fee
• September 24, 2009 - RTC issued order denying
complainants prayer for the issuance of the TRO.
Complainant alleged that the respondents failed to
inform him of the denial of his prayer. He was only
informed of the denial on November 3, 2009
• September 25, 2009 - Complainant was informed by
Atty. Espejo of the need to file a separate petition for
the issuance of the TRO with the fee amounting to Php
50,000.00 as represenation fee. However this amount
was brought down to Php 20,000.00
• October 23, 2009- Complainant deposited Php
4,000.00 to the account of Atty Bayot as appearance fee
for the hearing on the motion to serve summons through
publications. Atty Bayot allegedly did not appear and
only met with the client in the lobby of the Quezon City
Hall of Justice claiming that he talked to the clerk of
court and that their motion would be granted
The complainant alleged that the respondents failed to
update him as to the status of the complaint and that Atty
Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel
and asserted that Atty Espejo alone was the counsel
as he was simply a collaborating counsel
• January 07, 2010 – IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
directed the respondents to submit their respective answers
to the complaint:
Atty. Bayot claimed that he was not the counsel of the
complainant, that he merely assisted him and Atty. Espejo. He
averred that Atty. Espejo with the complainant's complaint
sought his help for the sole purpose of drafting a complaint.
Atty. Bayot pointed out that he had no part in the retainer
agreement that was entered into by the complainant, Felicitas
and Atty Espejo. He also denied having any knowledge as to
the Php 50,000.00 that was paid to Atty. Espejo as filing fees.
• He also denied any knowledge as to the
₱20,000.00 that was paid to Atty. Espejo
purportedly for "representation fee" that would
be used to file a new petition for the issuance of a
TRO
He was the one who was supposed to attend the hearing
of the said motion, but claimed that he was only
requested to do so by Atty. Espejo since the latter had
another commitment. He denied requesting from the
complainant the amount of ₱4,000.00 as appearance
fee, alleging that it was the latter who insisted on
depositing the same in his bank account.
Issue/s:
• Whether or not Atty. Bayot and Atty. Espejo
violated Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of Canon 16 and
Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which would
warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction.
Ruling:
• The court ruled that:
• The evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admissions
points to the conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and the complainant:
“Documentary formalism is not an essential element in
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is
sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession.”
Ruling:
• Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, as regards
the case before the RTC, the complainant had two
counsels – Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot.
Ruling:
• Accordingly, Atty. Bayot and Atty. Espejo owes
fidelity to the cause of the complainant and is
obliged to keep the latter informed of the status
of his case. He is likewise bound to account for
all money or property collected or received from
the complainant. He may be held administratively
liable for any inaptitude or negligence he may have
had committed in his dealing with the complainant.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.
Ruling:
• Complainant merely alleged that, after the hearing
on the motion to serve summons through
publication, the respondents had "made themselves
scarce" and failed to update him on the status of the
case before the RTC. However, other than his bare
allegations, the complainant failed to present any
evidence that would show that Atty. Bayot was
indeed lacking in his duties to the complainant.
Ruling:
• Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is hereby ADMONISHED to
exercise more prudence and judiciousness in dealing
with his clients. He is also ordered to return to Michael
Ruby within fifteen (15) days from notice the amount of
Four Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00) representing his
appearance fee received from the latter on October 23,
2009 with a warning that failure on his part to do so will
result in the imposition of stiffer disciplinary action.
Ruling:
• For lack of clear and convincing evidence on the part
of the complainant, mere allegations cannot used as a
means to disbar lawyers.
• However, the court still admonished the two lawyers
to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in
dealing with their clients and for their lack of
competence in observing Canons 16 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
