Nery v Sampana

Facts:

Melody Nery engages the services of Atty. Glicerio Sampana for

(1)the annulment of her marriage and

(2)for her adoption by an alien adopter.

The petition for annulment was granted. As for the adoption, Nery paid Sampana p100,000 in
installment without receipts since she trusted Sampana.

3 months after the last installment payment, Sampana sent a text message to Nery informing her that
the petition was already filed and published. He told her that since was set on March 5, 2010 but since
the hearing was only jurisdictional, her presence was no longer required.

Later, Nery inquired from Branch 11 of Malolos Bulacan and discovered that there was no petition filed
in the court. Immediately, Nery sought for the reimbursement of P100,000. Sampana agreed but said
that he would deduct the filing fee worth p12,000.

Nery filed a complaint. Sampana denied that he misled Nery as to the filing of the petition for adoption.
He claimed that Nery could have mistaken the proceeding for the annulment case with the petition for
adoption, and that the annulment case could have overshadowed the adoption case.

Issue: Whether Sampana was guilty of malpractice for making Nery believe that he already filed the
petition for adoption and for failing to file the petition despite receiving his legal fees.

Held: Yes.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty
of fidelity to the client's cause. Thus he should have observed CANON 15, 16, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03

A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he
has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by client and of the
public confidence in the legal profession.

In the present case, having no valid reason not to file the petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed
Nery of the status of the petition. He then conceded that the annulment case overshadowed the petition
for adoption. Verily, Sampana neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. He even kept the money
given to him in violation of the mandate of the code to deliver the client's fund upon demand.
Michael Ruby vs. Erlinda Espejo and Rudolph Bayot
Facts:

Complainants engaged the services of respondents in connection with a case for cancellation and
nullification of deeds of donation. Complainants paid p70,000 of the retainer's fee upon signing of the
agreement with another p30,000 to be paid after the hearing on the prayer for issuance of TRO.

RTC denied the complainant's prayer for the issuance of a TRO. Complainant then alleged that the
respondents failed to apprise him of said denial. A month after, despite several advance payment of the
remaining retainer's fee, Atty. Bayot did not appear to court but will only meet with complainant at the
Q.C. Hall of Justice.

Therefore, complainant alleged that respondents fails to update him always of his complaint. He further
claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that he was their counsel. Bayot asserted that it was Atty.
Espejo alone who was the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating counsel.
He further pointed out that he had no part in the retainer agreement that was entered into by the
complainants and Atty. Espejo.

He admit, however, that he was the one who drafted the motion to serve summons through publication,
but pointed out that it was Atty. Espejo who signed and filed it to the RTC. Thus he claimed that the
complainants had no cause of action against him.

Issue: Whether there was lawyer-client relationship existing between the complainant felicitas and Atty.
Bayot.

Held:Yes. Attorney-client relationship; "Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the

In the present case, circumstances clearly established that a lawyer-client relationship existed between
Atty. Bayor and complainant. Evidence on record, including Bayot's admission, points to the conclusion
that a lawyer-client relationship existed.

He was the one who prepared the complaint.

He prepared the motion to serve summons through publication.

He appeared as counsel for the complainant in the hearings of the case before the RTC

He also advise the complainant of the status of the case.

Further, the acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Atty. Bayot
admittedly received from complainants P8000 without even explaining what the said amount was for.
Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, the complainant had two counsels - Atty. Espejo and
Atty. Bayot.

Lydia Castro-justo vs Atty. Rodolfo Galing

Complainant Justo engaged the services of Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks issued by
Manila City Counselor Arelene Koa.

Responded drafted and sent a demand letter to Ms. Koa and subsequently filed a criminal complaint. (BP
22)

Not a month have passed, complainant received a copy of a Motion for consolidation filed by respondent
for and on behalf of Ms. Koa. Furthermore, a few days after, respondent appeared as counsel for Ms. Koa
before the prosecutor of Manila.

Complainant now submit that by representing conflicting interest, respondent violated the CPR.

Respondent denies the allegations and that while he admitted that he drafter a demand letter for
complainant, it was merely made in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of
professional engagement as professed by complainant. He also denied receiving any professional fee for
the services he rendered and that based on their agreement, complainant would have to retain the
services of another lawyer, Atty. Manuel Ano.

Respondent insit that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the parties to achieve an
out of court settlement.

Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of violating rule 15.03, representing conflicting interest?

Held:Yes.

The non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of monetary
consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases
with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is
established and extends beyond the duration of the professional relationship.

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.

This prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on the principles of public policy and
good taste.

Also, the excuse proffered by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Ano who was eventually engaged
by complainant will not exonerate him from violation of Rule 15.03. The take-over of a client's cause of
action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent the opposing party. It
is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence resulting from the attorney-
client relationship.

Jessie Campugan vs Atty. Victorio, Jr. and Atty. Caluya (Quilala)

Atty. Victorio, Jr. had replaced Atty. Edgardo Abad as counsel of the complainants in a civil action seeking
annulment of a TCT.

The parties entered into an amicable settlement during the pendency of the civil case whereby
complainants agreed to sell the property and the proceeds therof shall be divided equally between the
parties, and the complaint and counterclaims thereon would be withdrawn by them.

Pursuant to such term, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint which the RTC granted.
Since then, Atty. Victorio could no longer be located nor contact.

Complainants then found out upon verification in the Register of Deeds in Q.C. that new annotations
were made in the TCT, specifically (1) an annotation requesting the cancellation of the affidavit of
adverse claim, notice of lis pendens, and (2) an annotation of the decision granting the motion to
withdraw complaint.

Feeling aggrieved, the filed an appeal en consulta with the LRA assailing the unlawful cancellation of
their notice of adverse claim and lis pendends thereon.

Unable to receive any response or assistance from Atty. Victorio Jr. despite their having paid him for his
professional services, the complainants felt that said counsel had abandoned their case. They also
submitted that there was connivance and conspiracy at work between Atty. Victorio, Atty. Tolentino and,
Atty. Quilala in taking advantage of their position in cancelling their notice of adverse claims and lis
pendens without a court order.

Atty. Victorio, Jr. assserted in his comment that the complainants, after having aggressively participated
in the amicable settlement, could not now claim that they had been deceived nor feign ignorance of the
conditions contained therein: that he did not commit any abandonment reasoning that he should not be
held responsible for their representation in other proceedings, such as that before the LRA, which
required a separate engagement.

Issue: Whether Atty. Victorio, Jr. should be disbarred for not assisting complainants in their separate
proceeding in the LRA..

Held: No. Atty. Victorio, jr. could not be held liable for abandonment.
Attorney-Client Relationship; The Law Profession did not burden its members with the responsibility of
indefinite service to the clients; hence, the rendition of professional services depends on the agreement
between the attorney and the client.

Atty. Victorio, jr. could not be faulted for the perceived inattention to any other matters subsequent to
the termination of the Civil case. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated between them at any time during
the engagement, the complainants had no right to assume that Atty. Victorio's legal representation was
indefinite as to extend to his representation of them in the LRA.

Atty. Victorio, Jr.'s alleged failure to respond to the complainants' calls or visits, or to provide them with
his whereabouts to enable them to have access to him despite the termination of his engagement in the
civil case did not equate to abandonment without the credible showing that he continued to come
under the professional obligation towards them after the termination of the Civil Case.

Josefino Aninon vs Clemencio Sabitsana

Josefina M. Anion (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned
by her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her
for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Caete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja,
Jr.
The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her
in filing the civil case.
Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the
Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information.

Issue: Whether Atty. Sabitsana violated Rule 15.03 in representing conflicting interest.

Held:Yes.

The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full disclosure
of the clients most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for
his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the
client. Part of the lawyers duty in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter
covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility quoted below:
 Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The prohibition also applies even
if the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for
the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from
one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. To be held accountable
under this rule, it is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyers respective retainers with each of them would
affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in
a given case.

One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client
and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers argument for
one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a
former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment.

In the present case, respondent clearly violated the above rule due to the following circumstances:

One, his legal services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect her interest over a certain
property. The records show that upon the legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the
property was prepared and executed in the complainants favor.

Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Caete to discuss the latters legal interest over the property
subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge that Zenaida Caetes
interest clashed with the complainants interests.

Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing interests between his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted
the engagement from Zenaida Caete.

Four, Atty. Sabitsanas actual knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients was
demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida
Caete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed
was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the
complainant.
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in the same
action; he also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his
other client in a property in which his legal services had been previously retained.

DR. Teresita Lee vs. Atty. Amador Simando (LEE vs SIMANDO)

Dr. Lee retained Atty. Simando as counsel from 2004 to 2008. During said period, Atty. Simando was able
to convince Dr. Lee to lend money to one Mejorado by assuring Dr.Lee that she will be paid. To quote:

"Ipapahamak ba kita, kliyente kita. Sigurado ito, kung gusto mo gagarantiyahan ko pa ito, at pipirma din
ako. Isang buwan lang at hindi hihigit sa dalawang buwan, bayad ka na"

Dr.Lee agreed to give Mejorado sizeable amount of money amounting to 1.4M.

When the obligation was due, Mejorado failed and refused to comply with the obligation. Since Atty.
Mejando was still his lawyer then, she instructed him to initiate legal action. However, Simando just said
that he would get in touch with Mejorado so as to avoid legal action.

Despite complainant's repeated requests, respondent ignored her and failed to bring legal actions
against Mejorado. Thus, complainant terminated Atty. Simando and hired a new lawyer who then sent
demand letters to Mejorado and Atty. Simando as co-maker.

Complainant filed this instant petition for disbarment.

Atty. Simando, in his answer, insisted that he did not violate their lawyer-client relationship, since Dr. Lee
voluntarily made the financial investment with Mejorado and that he merely introduced complainant to
Mejorado. He further claimed that there is no conflict of interest because he is Mejorado's lawyer
relative to the latter's claim for informer's reward in the Bureau of Custom, and not Mejorado's lawyer
against Dr. Lee. He reiterated that there is no conflicting interest as there was no case between Mejorado
and Dr. Lee that he is handling for both of them.

Issue: Whether Atty. Simando was guilty of violating rule 15.03 in representing confilcting interest.

HELD: Yes.

Three test in determining whether a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interest.

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as a counsel for a person
whose interest conflict with that of his present or former client. Thus, respondent's assertion that
there is no conflict of interest because complainant and respondent are his clients in unrelated cases
fails to convince. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously
constitutes conflict of interest, or, at least, invites suspicion of double-dealing.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting
interest arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be. It
applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer's private activity or in the performance of a function in
a non-professional capacity. In the process of determining conflict of interest, an important criterion is
PROBABILITY, NOT CERTAINTY, OF CONFLICT.

The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The reason for this rule is
that the client's confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional
employment.

Ferdinand Samson vs Edgardo Era.

Samson charge Respondent Era for violating his trust and confidence by representing the interest of his
present client, Emilia Sison, in a manner that conflicted his interest.

Samson and his relatives were victims of a pyramiding scam, ICS Exports, whose corporate officers were
led by the Sison. Samson then engaged Atty. Era to assist him in the criminal prosecution of Sison and
her group.

Demand letters were sent and complaint-affidavits for several count for estafe was presented to the
prosecutors.

Later on, Atty. Era called a meeting with Samson and his relatives and was able to convince them to enter
an amicable settlement by guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property belonging to ICS
corporation in exchange of their desitance. The latter acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance.

After delivering copies of the deed of absolute deed of sale to Samson, Era told them that he would not
be responsible for any encumbrance or lien thereon. He told them that as far as he was concerned, he
had already accomplished his professional responsibility over the amicable settlement.

Samson verified the title at the RD of antipolo and was dismayed that they could not liquidate said
property for it is not registered under the name of ICS coproation anymore.

Due to the silence of Atty. Era, Samson hired another lawyer. However, they were shocked to find out
later on that Era had already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal
cases in the other branches of RTC QC involving the same pyramiding scam. Thus, Samson executed an
affidavit and prayed for the disbarment of Era.

In his comment, Atty. Era alleged that the conclusion of the compromise settlement between Samson
and Sison had terminated the lawyer-client relationship between him and Samson.
Issue: Whether Atty. Era represented conflicting interest in violation of the CPR.

Held: Yes. The Lawyer-client relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact remained that he still
needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases
until they were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court. The execution of a compromise
settlement in the criminal case did not ipso facto cause the termination of the cases not only because
the approval of the compromise by the trial court was still required, but also because the compromise
would have applied only to the civil aspect, and excluded the criminal aspect pursuant to Article 2034 of
the Civil Code.

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts. - Rule 15.03.

Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in
the maintenance and defense of their rights. He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to
preserve the client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of
justice.

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situation wherein a lawyer would be
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. It is
grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers.

Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his
former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer
disclose or use any of the client's confidences acquired in the previous relation.

The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
nor is it affected by the client's ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining, or by any other change of
relation between them.

The termination of the atty-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse
to or in conflict with that of the former client. Confidence, once given should not be stripped by the
mere expiration of the professional employment.

Sabitsana vs Muartegui
Facts:

On September 2,1981, Alberto Garcia sold a 7,500 sqm parcel of unregistered land in Leyte Del Norte to
Juanito Muertegui. They took possesion thereof and planted coconut and ipil ipil trees and paid the RPT
for the years 1980 to 1998.

On October 17, 1991, Garcia again sold the same lot to Muartegui family's lawyer, Atty. Celemencio
Sabitsana. The sale was registered with the Register of Deeds in 1992.

Upon the death of the possessor, Domingo Sr., the latter's heirs applied for registration but was
dismayed knowing that it was registered to Sabitsana. They then filed for quieting of title against
Sabitsana.

Sabitsana claimed that he was a purchaser in good faith but evidence and testimonies of the
respondent's witnesses revealed in trial that Sabitsana was the Muartegui Family's lawyer and that at
the time Garcia sold the lot to the Muartegui, Sabitsana was consulted by the family. Thus it was unlikely
that Sabitsana had no knowledge of the previous sale.

Sabitsana feigned ignorance by stating that since the land was unregistered, the muarteguis could have
only been bluffing so as to discourage him to buy the property because they were interested to buy it
themselves.

Both RTC and CA ruled that Sabitsana, being the family lawyer, is a purchaser in bad faith. By relationship
with the muartegui family, petitioners came to know about the prior sale and possession yet they still
pushed through with the second sale. It also awarded attorney's fees and litigation expenses because of
petitioner's bad faith.

Issue: Whether the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses are proper.

Held: Yes. Atty. Sabitsana was remiss in his duties as counsel of the Muarteguis. Instead of advising the
Muarteguis to register their purchase as soon as possible, he did the exact opposit and took advantage
of the information and situation by buying the very same land. Petitioner Sabitsana took advantage of
confidential information disclosed to him by his client.

As the Muarteguis family lawyer, he had no right to take a position, using information disclosed to him in
confidence by his client, that would place him in possible conflict with his duty.

He was under obligation to safeguard his client's property, and not jeopardize it. Such is his duty as an
attorney, and pursuant to his general agency.

Even granting that Atty. Sabitsana has ceased to act as the Murategui family's lawyer, he still owed them
his loyalty. The Termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client on a matter
involving confidential information which the lawyer acquired when he was counsel. The client's
confidence, once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment. This is
underscored by the fact that Atty. Sabitsana obtained information from Carmen which he used to his advantage
and to the detriment of his client.