LEGAL ETHICS AY 2017-2018 

Chapter 4. The Lawyer and Client  

CANON 14 SERVICES TO THE NEEDY; PRO BONO WORK; RIGHT OF PERSONS TO ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES  

1.  LEDESMA v  PARTIES: ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,  

CLIMACO, G.R.  vs. 
No. L-23815, June  HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent. 
28, 1974   
PONENTE: FERNANDO, J 
(BASA)  CASE:  
 
FACTS:  
On  October  13,  1964  petitioner  was  appointed  Election  Registrar  for  the  Municipality  of  Cadiz,  Province  of  Negros  Occidental.  Then  and  there,  he  commenced  to  discharge 
its  duties.  As  he  was  counsel  de  parte  for  one  of  the  accused  in  a  case  pending  in  the  sala  of  respondent  Judge,  he  filed  a  motion  to  withdraw  as  such.  Not  only  did  respondent 
Judge deny such motion, but he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two defendants. 
 
Subsequently,  on  November  3,  1964,  petitioner  filed  an  urgent  motion  to  be  allowed  to  withdraw  as  counsel  de  oficio,  premised  on  the  policy  of  the  Commission  on  Elections 
to  require  full  time  service  as  well  as  on  the  volume  or  pressure  of  work  of  petitioner,  which  could  prevent  him  from  handling  adequately  the  defense.  Respondent  Judge,  in 
the challenged order of November 6, 1964, denied said motion. 
 
A motion for reconsideration having proved futile, he instituted this certiorari proceeding 
 
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ledesma should be allowed to withdraw as counsel de officio considering his appointment as Election Registrar. 
 
HELD: NO.  
 
SC DECISION:   
If  respondent  Judge  were  required  to  answer  the  petition,  the  welfare  of  the  accused  could  be  prejudiced  as  stressed  by  Chief  Justice  Moran  in  People  v.  Holgado  in  these 
words:  
 
”  Even  the  most  intelligent  or  educated  man  may  have  no  skill  in  the  science  of  law,  particularly  in  the  rules  of  procedure,  and;  without  counsel,  he  may  be  convicted  not  because  he  is  guilty  but 
because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  right  to  be  assisted  by  counsel  is  deemed  so  important  that  it  has  become  a  constitutional  right  and  it  is  so  implemented  that  under  rules  of  procedure  it  is  not 
enough  for  the  Court  to  apprise  an  accused  of  his  right  to  have  an  attorney,  it  is  not  enough  to  ask  him  whether  he  desires  the  aid  of  an  attorney,  but  it  is  essential  that  the  court  should  assign 
one de oicio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.” 
 
It  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  membership  in  the  bar  is  a  privilege  burdened  with  conditions.  It  could  be  that  for  some  lawyers,  especially  the  neophytes  in  the  profession, 
being  appointed  counsel  de  oficio  is  an  irksome  chore.  However,  the  admonition  is  ever  timely  for  those  enrolled  in  the  ranks  of  legal  practitioners  that  there  are  times,  and 
this is one of them, when duty to court and to client takes precedence over the promptings of self-interest. 
Assuming  Ledesma's  good  faith,  his  appointment  as  an  election  registrar  cannot  be  availed  of  now  when  granting  his  withdrawal  will  result  to  the  delay  in  the  administration 
of justice. It is to be noted that the proceedings has been delayed at least eight times at the defense's instance, resulting to undue inconvenience to the parties involved. 
 
What  is  easily  discernible  in  this  case  is  the  petitioner's  reluctance  to  comply  with  the  responsibilities  incumbent  upon  him  as  counsel  de  oficio.  Petitioner  is  admonished  for 
 not  being  mindful  of  his  obligation  where  he  is  expected  to  exercise  due  diligence,  not  mere  perfunctory  representation,  to  the  case  of  his  clients.  He  must  be  reminded  that  a 
member of the bar is a vanguard in the bastion of justice and is therefore expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less self-interest. 
 

2.  ABAQUETA v  PARTIES: Gamaliel Abaqueta, complainant and Atty. Bernardito A. Florido, respondent  
FLORIDO, Adm.  PONENTE:Ynares-Santiago, J.  
Case No. 5948,  CASE: Administrative complaint against Atty. Bernardito A. Florido filed with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for representing conflicting interests 
January 22, 2003   
FACTS: 
(CRUZ)  ● Gamaliel acquired American citizenship  
● Atty. Florido is a practicing lawyer based in Cebu City.  
● Gamaliel  engaged  the  professional  service  of  Atty.  Floriod  through  his  attorney-in-fact,  Mrs.  Baclig  to  represent  him  in  Special  Proceedings  before  the  RTC  of 
Cebu. 
● Accordingly, Atty. Florido entered his appearance as counsel of Gamaliel for the said proceedings.  
● Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against Gamaliel. Atty. Florido signed the Complaint as counsel for Milagros  
● The parcels of land referred to as conjugal property of complainant and Milagros are very same parcels of land in the aforementioned Special Proceedings.  
● Gamaliel argues that Atty. Florido’s conduct constitute professional misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court proceedings.  
● However, Atty. Floriodo claims that he always acted in good faith in his professional relationship with Gamaliel in spite the fact that they have not personally met.  
○ He  based  the  complaint  he  wrote  on  the  information  and  documents  supplied  by  Mrs.  Baclig,  sister-in-law  and  attorney-in-fact,  that  he  was  the  sole  and 
exclusive owner of the properties.  
● Long after the Special proceedings was settled and the attorney-client relationship was terminated, Milagros and Mrs. Baclig engaged his services.  
○ Mrs.  Baclig  presented  to  him  a  deed  of  absolute  sale  which  shows  that  said  property  is  a  conjugal  property  acquired  during  the  subsistence  of  their 
marriage.  
● Atty.  Florido  further  claims  that  his  law  firm  handles  on  the  average  80  new  court  cases  annually.  The  absence  of  personal  contact  with  Gamaliel  and  the  lapse  of  8 
years resulted in the oversight of his memory that he was his former client.  
● Also, the caption of the Special Proceedings was not in the name of Gamaliel but was entitled “ In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta”ˆ 
● Atty. Florido expressed regret over the oversight moved him to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted by the trial court.  
● Gamaliel  averred  that  Atty.  Floriodo’s  conduct  geared  towards  ensuring  court  victory  for  Milagros  wherein  he  deliberately  stated  that  his  address  was  9203 
Riverside Lodge Houston Texas when he knew filly well that his true address was 7th st & Italian School Road, Phoenix Arizona.  
○ By falsely stating and concealing his true and correct address, Atty. Floriodo succeeded in obtaining a default judgment in favor of his client.  
 
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Floriodo violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?  
 
HELD: YES 
● IBP  found  that  Atty.  Floriodo  clearly  violated  the  prohibition  against  representing  conflicting  interests  and  recommended  that  he  be  suspended  from  practice  of  law 
for 3 months.  
● Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that  
○ “A Lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.  
● There is conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of 2 or more opposing parties.  
○ If he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.  
● The fact that Atty. Florido admitted that he did not secure the consent of Gamaliel before he agreed to ac as Milagros lawyer.  
● Also,  investigating  commissioner  observed  that  the  name  “Gamaliel  Abaqueta”  is  not  a  common  name.  In  the  case,  Atty.  Floriodo  actively  prosecuted  the  cause  of 
Gamaliel such that it would be impossible for Atty. Florido not to have recalled his name.  
 ● Also, considering that Mrs. Baclig, who was Gamaliel’s attorney-in-fact was also the same person who brought Milagros to him. 
● It must also be noted that the 2 proceedings subject matter is the same properties.  
● A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interests conflicts with that of his former client.  
● That reason for this prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.  
 
SC  DECISION:  Atty.  Florido  is  SUSPENDED  from  the  practice  of  law  for  3  months.  He  is  further ADMONISHED to exercise greater case and diligence in the 
performance of his duties towards his client and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.  
 

CANON 15 – DEALING WITH CLIENTS WITH CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY 

3.  DEE v COURT OF  PARTIES: 

APPEALS, G.R. No.  Donald Dee, petitioner 
77439, August 24,  Court of Appeals & Atty. Amelito Mutuc, respondent 
1989   
CASE: Petitioner assails the resolution of respondent court reinstating its decision wherein it affirmed the decision of the that court holding that the services rendered by 
(DE JESUS)  private respondent was on a professional, and not on a gratis et amore basis, and ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of P50,000.00 as the balance of the 
latter's legal fee therefor. 
 
PONENTE: Regalado 
 
FACTS: 
● Petitioner  and  his  father  went  to  the  residence  of  private  respondent,  Atty.  Mutuc,  to  seek  his  advice  regarding  the  problem  of  the  alleged  indebtedness  of 
petitioner’s  brother,  Dewey  Dee,  to  Caesar’s  Palace,  a  well-known  gambling  casino  at  Las  Vegas,  Nevada,  U.S.A.  The  petitioner  also  worries  that  the  casino  is 
linked to the mafia. 
○ Mr.  Dee  agreed  that  Atty.  Mutuc  would  make  the  necessary  arrangements.  He  then  paid  Atty.  Mutuc  Php  30,000,  as  partial  payment  of  the  Php  100,000 
service fee. 
● Private  respondent  personally  talked  with  the  president  of  Caesar’s  Palace  at  Las  Vegas,  Nevada.  He  advised  the  president  that  for  the  sake  and  in  the  interest  of  the 
casino it would be better to make Ramon Sy answer for the indebtedness. 
○ The  president  told  him  that  if  he  could  convince  Ramon  Sy  to  acknowledge  the  obligation,  Dewey  Dee  would  be  exculpated  from  liability  for  the 
account. 
● Upon  private  respondent’s  return  to  Manila,  he  conferred  with  Ramon  Sy  and  the  latter  was  convinced  to  acknowledge  the  indebtedness.  In  August,  1981,  private 
respondent  brought  to  Caesar’s  Palace  the  letter  of  Ramon  Sy  owning  the  debt  and  asking  for  a  discount.  Thereafter,  the  account  of  Dewey  Dee  was  cleared  and  the 
casino never bothered him. 
● Having  thus  settled  the  account  of  petitioner’s  brother,  private  respondent  sent  several  demand  letters  to  petitioner  demanding  the  balance  as  attorney’s  fees. 
Petitioner, however, ignored said letters. 
● Upon trial, the petitioner raises two objections: 
○ He  claims  that  the  initial  amount  paid  to  the  respondent  was  not  in  the  nature  of  attorney's  fees  but  merely  "pocket  money"  solicited  by  the  former  for  his 
trips to Las Vegas and the said amount was already sufficient remuneration for his strictly voluntary services 
○ He argues that there was a conflict of interest on the part of Atty. Mutuc as he is employed as a collection agent of the casino 
 
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Mutuc is entitled to the balance he demands as payment for his services, YES 
 
 HELD:  
● There  is  no  question  that  professional  services  were  actually  rendered  by  private  respondent  to  petitioner  and  his  family.  Through  his efforts, the account of 
petitioner’s  brother,  Dewey  Dee,  with  Caesar’s  Palace  was  assumed  by  Ramon  Sy  and  petitioner  and  his  family  were  further  freed  from  the 
apprehension  that  Dewey  might  be  harmed  or  even  killed  by  the  so-called mafia.  For  such  services,  respondent  Mutuc  is  indubitably  entitled  to  receive  a 
reasonable  compensation  and  this  right  cannot  be  concluded  by  petitioner’s  pretension  that  at  the  time  private  respondent  rendered  such  services  to  petitioner  and 
his family, the former was also the Philippine consultant of Caesar’s Palace. 
● Even  assuming  that  the  imputed  conflict  of  interests  obtained,  private  respondent's  role  therein  was  not  ethically  or legally indefensible.  Generally, an 
attorney  is  prohibited  from  representing  parties  with  contending  positions.  However,  at  a  certain  stage  of  the  controversy  before  it  reaches  the 
court,  a  lawyer  may  represent  conflicting  interests  with  the  consent  of  the  parties.  A  common  representation  may  work to the advantage of said 
parties  since  a  mutual  lawyer,  with  honest  motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties' disparate positions, may well be better situated to 
work  out  an  acceptable  settlement  of  their  differences,  being  free  of  partisan  inclinations  and  acting with the cooperation and confidence of said 
parties. 
● A  lawyer  is  entitled  to  have  and  receive the just and reasonable compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request of his client 
and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees. 

4.  BURBE v  PARTIES: 

MAGULTA, Adm.  PONENTE: 
Case No. 5713, June  CASE:  
10, 2002   
FACTS: 
(DEL ROSARIO)  ISSUE:  
HELD:  
SC DECISION:  

5.  SANTIAGO ET AL.  PARTIES: Plaintiffs: Veronica Santiago, et al. Vs. Defendant: Atty. Amado Fojas   
v FOJAS, A.C. No.  PONENTE: Hilario Davide, Jr. 
4103, September 7,  CASE: Disbarment Case for "malpractice, neglect and other offenses which may be discovered during the actual investigation of this complaint." 
1995  FACTS:  
● An  expulsion  case  was  faced  by  the  complainants  contending  that  they  have  illegally  removed  from  the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino 
(LABASAN)  Salvador. 
●   The  lower  court resolved in favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to pay, jointly and severally, Mr. Salvador. The case was then elevated 
to  the  Court  of  Appeals.  The  complainants  lost  in  their  petition  at  the  Court  of  Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious 
neglect of their counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil complaint on an expulsion case.   
● Atty.  Fojas assured them that everything was in order and he had already answered the complaint. However, the appellants soon discovered that he 
never answered it after all because, according to him, he was a very busy man.  
● Atty.  Fojas  admitted  his  “mistake”  in  failing  to  file  an  answer  for  the  expulsion  case,  but  he  alleges  that  it  was  cured  by  his  filing of a motion for 
reconsideration. However, such motion for reconsideration was denied.  
● Atty.  Fojas  defended  his  negligence  with  the  reason  that  the  case  was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was about to appeal the 
said  decision  to  this  Court,  but  his  services  as  counsel  for  the  complainants  and  for  the  union  were  illegally  and  unilaterally  terminated  by 
complainant. Complainants then filed for a disbarment case. 
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the actions of Atty. Fojas constitutes negligence for failure to file the answers of his clients, therein the complainants. 
HELD: YES 
  
The  Supreme  Court  upheld  Canon  14  of  the  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility.  Once  he  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.  This  means  that  his  client  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  any  and  every 
remedy  and  defense  that  is  authorized  by  the  law  of  the  land  and  he  may  expect  his  lawyer  to  assert  every  such  remedy  or  defense.  In  his  motion  for 
reconsideration  of  the  default  order,  the  respondent  explained  his  non-filing  of  the  required  answer  by  impliedly  invoking  forgetfulness  occasioned  by  a 
large  volume  and  pressure  of  legal  work,  while  in  his  Comment  in  this  case  he  attributes  it  to  honest  mistake  and  excusable  neglect  due  to  his 
overzealousness  to  question  the  denial  order  of  the  trial  court.  Whether  it  be  the  first  or  the  second  ground,  the  fact  remains  that  the  respondent  did  not 
comply with his duty to file an answer. 
 
Pressure  and  large  volume  of  legal  work  provide  no  excuse  for  the  respondent’s  inability  to exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an 
answer.  Every  case  a  lawyer  accepts  deserves  his  full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a 
fee or for free. Furthermore, a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, 
with  diligence  and,  more  specifically,  Rule  18.03  thereof  which  provides:  “A  lawyer  shall  not  neglect  a  legal  matter  entrusted  to him, and his negligence in 
connection therewith shall render him liable.” 
 
Atty.  Fojas’s  negligence  is  not  excused  by  his  claim  that  Civil  Case  No.  3526-V-91  was  in  fact  a  “losing  cause”.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  he  should  have 
seasonably  informed  the  complainants  thereof.  Rule  15.05,  Canon  15  of  the  Code  of  Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising 
his  client,  shall  give  a  candid  and  honest  opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case, neither overstating nor understanding the prospects 
of the case. 
 
 
SC DECISION: Atty. Fojas is reprimanded and admonished for his inexcusable negligence. He needs to be more careful in his duties to his clients. 

6.  ROSACIA v  PARTIES: CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA, complainant; ATTY. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO, respondent. 
BULALACAO,  PONENTE: FRANCISCO, J 
Adm. Case No.  CASE:  On  October  25,  1991,  complainant  Cynthia  B.  Rosacia,  president  of  Tacma,  Phils.,  Inc.,  a  duly  registered  corporation,  filed  a  complaint  for  disbarment  against 
3745, October 2,  respondent  Atty.  Benjamin  B.  Bulalacao.  On  February  24,  1992  the  Court  in  a  resolution  resolved  to  refer  the  case  to  IBP  for  investigation,  report  and  recommendation.  The 
IBP  investigating  commissioner,  found  that  respondent  breached  his  oath  of  office  and  accordingly  recommended  respondent's  suspension  from  the  practice  of  law  for  three 
1995  (3) months. 
(LANZON)  FACTS:  
● On  June  1,  1990,  by  virtue  of  a  written  Agreement  (Exh.  "3-a"),  respondent  Atty.  Benjamin  B.  Bulalacao  was  hired  as  retained  counsel  of  a  corporation  by  the  name 
of Tacma Phils., Inc. 
● On  October  31,  1990,  the  lawyer-client  relationship  between  the  respondent  and  Tacma  Phils.,  Inc.  was  severed  as  shown  by  another  agreement  of  even  date  (Exh. 
"3-b"). 
● On  July,  1991,  or  after  almost  nine  (9)  months  from  the  date  respondent's  retainer  agreement  with  Tacma,  Phils.,  Inc.  was  terminated,  several  employees  of  the 
corporation  consulted  the  respondent  for  the  purpose  of  filing  an  action  for  illegal  dismissal.  Thereafter,  he  agreed  to  handle  the  case  for  the  said  employees  as 
against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf. 
ISSUE:  Whether  or  not  respondent  breached  his  oath  of  office  for  representing  the  employees  of  his  former  client,  Tacma,  Phils.,  Inc.,  after  the  termination  of  their 
attorney-client relationship 
HELD:  Yes.  The  Court  agreed  with  the  findings  of  the  IBP  that  respondent  breached  his  oath  of  office.  In  fact,  in  his  motion  for  reconsideration,  respondent  admitted  that  he 
"did commit an act bordering on grave misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney's oath".  
 
The  Court  reiterates  that  an  attorney  owes  loyalty  to  his  client  not  only  in  the  case  in  which  he  has  represented  him  but  also  after  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  has 
 terminated  as  it  is  not  good  practice  to  permit  him  afterwards  to  defend  in  another  case  other  person  against  his  former  client  under  the  pretext  that  the  case  is  distinct  from, 
and  independent  of  the  former  case.  It  behooves  respondent  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 attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. 
 
The relation of attorney and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest degree. The lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client 
 
An  attorney  not  only  becomes  familiar  with  all  the  facts  connected  with  his  client's  cause,  but  also  learns  from  his  client  the  weak  and  strong  points  of  the  case.  No 
opportunity  must  be  given  attorneys  to  take  advantage  of  the  secrets  of  clients  obtained  while  the  confidential  relation  of  attorney  and  client  exists.  Otherwise,  the  legal 
profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the people. 
 
 
DURING  THE  TRIAL:  Respondent  is  pleading  for  the  Court's  compassion  and  leniency  to  reduce  the  IBP  recommended  three  months  suspension  to  either  fine  or 
admonition with the following proffered grounds:   
1. that  he  is  relatively  new  in  the  profession  having  been  admitted  to  the  Philippine  Bar  on  April  10,  1990  at  the  age  of  46  when  the  complained  conduct  was 
committed on August 1991 
2. that he is of humble beginnings and his suspension will deprive his family of its only source of livelihood he being the sole bread winner in the family 
3. that he has fully realized his mistake and the gravity of his offense for which he is fully repentant 
4. that  he  has  severed  his  attorney-client  relationship  with  the  employees  of  Tacma,  Phils.,  Inc.  by  inhibiting  himself  and  withdrawing  his  appearance  as  counsel  in  the 
labor case against Tacma, Phils., Inc. 
5. that he pledges not to commit the same mistake and to henceforth strictly adhere to the professional standards set forth by the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
The  Court  ruled  however  that the respondent's plea for leniency cannot be granted.  We  note  that  respondent  is  new  in  the  profession  as  he  was  just  admitted  to  the 
Philippine  Bar  on  April  10,  1990,  when  the  breach  of  his  oath  of  office  occurred  more  than  a  year  after. Having just hurdled the bar examinations which included an 
examination  in  legal  ethics,  surely  the  precepts  of  the  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility  to  keep  inviolate  the client's trust and confidence even after the 
attorney-client  relation  is terminated must have been still fresh in his mind.  A  lawyer starting to establish his stature in the legal profession must start right 
and  dutifully  abide  by  the  norms  of  conduct  of  the  profession.  This  will  ineluctably  redound  to  his  benefit  and  to the upliftment of the legal profession as 
well. 
 
SC DECISION: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three months. 

6 MATURAN v  PARTIES: Glorito Maturan (petitioner) and Atty. Conrado Gonzales (respondent) 
GONZALES, Adm.  PONENTE: Romero 
Case No. 2597,  CASE: Complaint for disbarment for immoral, unethical, and anomalous acts 
March 12, 1998   
FACTS: 
(LAZATIN)  1.  Sps.  Casquejo  instituted  their  son-in-law,  Glorito  Maturan,  as  their  attorney-in-fact,  through  a  Special  Power  of  Attorney.  Said  SPA  authorized  Maturan  to  file 
  ejectment  cases  against  squatters  occupying  lots  owned  by  the  Sps.  in  General  Santos  City,  as  well  as  criminal  cases  for  violation  of  P.D.  772.  Atty.  Conrado 
Gonzales, prepared and notarized said Special Power of Attorney. 
2.  Subsequently,  Maturan  engaged  the  services  of  Atty.  Gonzales  in  ejecting  the  squatters.  The  said  lot  was  registered  in  the  name  of  Celestino  Yokingco,  however, 
Antonio Casquejo had instituted a case for reconveyance of property and declaration of nullity against the former. 
3.  As  a  consequence  of  his  engagement,  Atty.  Gonzales  filed  a  case  for  Forcible  Entry  and  Damages  against  several  individuals.  The  court  ruled  in  favor  of  Maturan  and 
a motion for issuance of a writ of execution was filed. 
4. Yokingco and Casquejo entered in to a compromise agreement which was approved by the court. 
 5.  While  the  motion  for  issuance  of  a  writ  of  execution  was  pending,  and  without  withdrawing  as  counsel  for  Maturan,  Atty.  Gonzales  filed,  on  behalf  of  Celestino 
Yokingco,  an  action  to  annul  the  judgment  rendered  in  the  action  for  reconveyance  and  declaration  of  nullity.  The  action  was  predicated  on  the  lack  of  authority  on 
the  part  of  Maturan  to  represent  Antonio  and  Gloria  Casquejo,  as  no  such  authorization  was  shown  to  be  on  record.  Thereafter,  Atty.  Gonzales,  on  behalf  of 
Yokingco, also filed an injunction case with a prayer for preliminary injunction, with damages, against Maturan. 
6.  Aggrieved  by  Atty.  Gonzales’  acceptance  of  professional  employment  from  their  adversary  and  alleging  that  privileged  matters  relating  to  the  land  in  question  had 
been  transmitted  by  Maturan  to  Atty.  Gonzales,  Maturan  filed  an  administrative  complaint  against  the  former  for  immoral,  unethical,  and  anomalous  acts  and 
asked for his disbarment. 
7.  Atty.  Gonzales  declared  that  he  was  of  the  belief  that  filing  a  motion  for  issuance  of  a  writ  of  execution  was  the  last  and  final  act  in  the  lawyer-client  relationship 
between  himself  and  Maturan,  and  that  his  formal  withdrawal  as  counsel  for  the  Casquejos  was  unnecessary  in  order  to  sever  the  lawyer-client  relationship 
between  them.  Furthermore,  he  alleged  that  his  acceptance  of  employment  from  Yokingco  was  for  him,  an  opportunity  to  honestly  earn  a  little  more  for  his 
children’s sustenance. 
8.  IBP:  guilty  of  representing  conflicting  interests  and  recommended  that  he  be  suspended  for  3  years;  Board  of  Governors  of  the  IBP:  affirmed  but  recommended  that 
the suspension be reduced from 3 years to 1 year. 
ISSUE: WON Atty. Gonzales is guilty of conflict of interests- YES  
HELD:  
·    It  is  improper  for  a  lawyer  to  appear  as  counsel  for  one  party  against  the  adverse  party  who  is  his  client  in  a  related  suit,  as  a  lawyer  is  prohibited  from  representing 
conflicting  interests  or  discharging  inconsistent  duties.  He  may  not,  without  being  guilty  of  professional  misconduct,  act  as  counsel  for  a  person  whose  interest 
conflicts  with  that  of  his  present  or  former  client.  That  the  representation  of  conflicting  interest  is  in  good  faith  and  with  honest  intention  on  the  part  of  the  lawyer 
does not make the prohibition inoperative. 
·  The  reason  for  the  prohibition  is  found  in  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client,  which  is  one  of  trust  and  confidence  of  the  highest  degree.  A  lawyer  becomes  familiar 
with  all  the  facts  connected  with  his  clients’  case.  He  learns  from  his  client  the  weak  points  of  the  action  as  well  as  the  strong  ones.  Such  knowledge  must  be 
considered  sacred  and  guarded  with  care.  No  opportunity  must  be  given  him  to  take  advantage  of  the  clients’  secrets.  A  lawyer  must  have  the  fullest  confidence  of 
his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof. 
· This Court finds respondents actuations violative of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provide in part: 
o It  is  unprofessional  to  represent  conflicting  interests,  except  by  express  consent  of  all  concerned  given  after  a  full  disclosure  of  the  facts.  Within  the 
meaning  of  this  canon,  a  lawyer  represents  conflicting  interests  when,  in  behalf  of  one  client,  it  is  his  duty  to  contend  for  that  which  duty  to  another 
client requires him to oppose. 
·  Moreover,  Atty.  Gonzales’  justification  for  his  actions  reveal  a  patent  ignorance  of  the  fiduciary  obligations  which  a  lawyer  owes  to  his  client.  A  lawyer-client 
relationship  is  not  terminated  by  the  filing  of  a  motion  for  a  writ  of  execution.  His  acceptance  of  a  case  implies  that  he  will  prosecute  the  case  to  its  conclusion.  He 
may not be permitted to unilaterally terminate the same to the prejudice of his client. 
· Atty. Gonzales is suspended from the practice of the profession for 2 years. 

8.  ABRAGAN EL AL.  PARTIES: Erlinda Abragan, petitioner 

v RODRIGUEZ,  Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez 
Adm. Case No.  PONENTE: Panganiban, J. 
4346, April 3, 2002  CASE: Petition praying for the disbarment of Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez because of alleged illegal and unethical acts 
 
(LIMJOCO)  FACTS: 
Sometime  in  1986,  the  petitioners  hired  the  services  of  the  respondent  to  represent  them  in  a  case  for  Forcible  Entry  with  Petition  for  a  Writ  of  Preliminary  Injunction  and 
Damages  before  the  MTCC  of  Cagayan  de  Oro  City.  The  case  was  won  by  the  complainants.  After  they  won  the  case,  a  Writ  of  Execution  was  issued  by  the  Honorable 
Municipal Trial Court, and the same respondent lawyer represented the petitioners. 
 
Subsequently,  respondent  disturbed  the  association  which  petitioners  were  all  members  of,  by  surreptitiously  selling  some  rights  to  other  persons  without  the  consent  of  the 
 petitioner. Petitioners severed their lawyer-client relationship. 
 
On  August  1991,  complainants  filed  a  case  of  indirect  contempt  against  Sheriff  Fernando  Loncion  et  al.  Much  to  their  dismay,  respondent  represented  the  sheriff.  Petitioner’s 
current  counsel  was  Atty.  Salva,  former  law  student  of  respondent.  Said  counsel,  upon  suggestion  of  respondent,  withdrew  from  the  case  without  petitioner’s  consent.  Due  to 
his withdrawal, events occured which prejudiced the petitioners. Petitioners pray for the disbarment of Atty. Maximo G. Rodriguez.  
 
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez is guilty for violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
HELD: Yes, he is guilty. 
SC DECISION:  
In  the  present  case,  respondent  clearly  violated  Rule  15.03  of  Canon  15  of  the  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility,  which  provides  that  “a  lawyer  shall  not  represent 
conflicting  interests  except  by  written  consent  of  all  concerned  given  after  full  disclosure  of  the  facts.”  Respondent  should  have  evaluated  the  situation  first  before  agreeing  to 
be  counsel  for  Sheriff  Fernando.  Attorneys  owe  undivided  allegiance  to  their  clients,  and  should  at  all  times  weigh  their  actions,  especially  in  their  dealings  with  the  latter  and 
the  public  at  large.  They  must  conduct  themselves  beyond  reproach  at  all  times.  The  Court  will  not  tolerate  any  departure  from  the  "straight  and  narrow"  path  demanded  by 
the ethics of the legal profession. 
 
Complainants  ask  that  respondent  be  disbarred.  We  find  however  that  suspension  of  six  (6)  months  from  the  practice  of  law,  as  recommended  by  Commissioner  Navarro,  is 
sufficient to discipline respondent. 

9.  PORMENTO SR. v  PARTIES: Elesio C. Pormento, SR. and Atty. Alias A. Pontevedra  
PONTEVEDRA,  PONENTE: Austria-Martinez, J. 
Adm. Case No. 5128,  CASE: Pormento’s contention that Pontevedra was guilty of malpractice and misconduct by representing clients with conflicting interests 
March 31, 2005   
FACTS: 
(OSORIO)  ● Atty. Pontevedra served as a family lawyer of Pormento’s family for a long time 
  ● Pormento was the complainant in Civil case no. 1648 (ejectment case) and Pontevedra served as his counsel. 
● However,  during  the course of the case, Pontevedra refused to institute an action for the recovery of subject property; thus, prompting Pormento to 
hire another lawyer 
● Alongside  the  Civil  case,  Pormento  filed  a  Criminal  case  (qualified  theft  -  for  harvesting  the  coconut  trees  in  the  subject  lot)  against  the  same 
respondents from the aforementioned Civil case 
● Pontevedra served as counsel for the respondent in this Criminal case 
● Pormento alleged that Pontevedra was guilty of malpractice and misconduct by representing clients with conflicting interests  
● Pontevedra’s  defense  is  that  after  he  left  the  service  of  Pormento  during  the  Civil  case  (thus  terminating  his  service  and  attorney-client 
relationship), there was no instance of representing conflicted interests when he entered the service of the respondents in the Criminal case 
● Pontevedra also stated that he entered the service of the Criminal case respondents in good faith and to serve the ends of social justice 
ISSUE:  
● WON, Atty. Pontevedra is guilty of malpractice and misconduct by representing clients with conflicting interests 
HELD:  
● The  court  said  that  Pontevedra  acquired  key  information  during  his  service  for  Pormento  and  that  his service the Criminal case respondents can 
utilize the said information 
● There was an instance of representing conflicting interests 
● 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  rule  is  settled  that  the  prohibition  against  representation  of  conflicting  interests  applies  regardless  of  the  attorney’s  intentions  and  motives 
 were honest and he acted in good faith 
● However,  suspension  was  considered  to  be  a  misproportionate  penalty  as  Pontevedra  acted  in  honest  belief  that  there  was  no  representation  of 
conflicting interests 
SC DECISION:  
● WHEREFORE,  respondent  Atty.  Elias  A.  Pontevedra  is  found  GUILTY  of  representing  conflicting  interests  and  is  hereby  FINED  in  the  amount  of  Ten  Thousand 
(P10,000.00) Pesos. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. 
 
The  Board  of  Governors  of  the  Integrated  Bar  of  the  Philippines  is  DIRECTED  to  be  heedful  of  the  requirements  provided for in Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of the Rules of 
Court as discussed in the text of herein decision. 

10.  SANTOS  PARTIES: 

VENTURA  PONENTE:  
HOCORMA  CASE:  
FOUNDATION,   
FACTS: 
INC. v FUNK,  ISSUE:   
Adm. Case No.  HELD:  
9094, August 15,  SC DECISION:  
2012   
(VARGAS)   
 

11  NAKPIL v  PARTIES: IMELDA A. NAKPIL, complainant, vs. ATTY. CARLOS J. VALDES, respondent. 
VALDEZ, Adm.  PONENTE: PUNO, J.  
Case No. 2040,  CASE:  
March 4, 1998   
FACTS: 
(BASA)  Jose  Nakpil  and  Carlos  Valdes  were  friends  since  the  1950s.  Due  to  their  friendship,  respondent  (CPA-lawyer)  became  the  business  consultant,  lawyer  and  accountant  of  the 
  Nakpils. 
 
In  1965,  Jose  Nakpil  became  interested  in  purchasing  a  summer  residence  in  Moran  St.  ,  Baguio  City.  For  lack  of  funds,  he  requested  respondent  to  purchase  the  Moran 
property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust for the 
 
Nakpils  until  the  latter  could  buy  it  back.  Pursuant  to  the  agreement,  respondent  obtained  2  loans  from  a  bank,  in  the  amounts  of  P65,  000  and  P75,  000,  which  he  used  to 
purchase  and  renovate  the  property.  Title  was  then  issued  in  respondent’s  name.  Nakpils  occupied  the  summer  house.  When  Jose  Nakpil  died  in  1973,  respondent  acted  the 
legal counsel and accountant of Jose’s widow. Respondent’s law form, Carlos J. Valdes & Assoc. handled the proceeding for the settlement of Jose’s estate. 
 
Ownership  of  the  Moran  property  became  an  issue  in  the  intestate  proceedings.  Respondent  excluded  the  Moran  property  from  the  inventory  of  Jose’s  estate.  He  transferred 
his title to the Moran property to his company, Caval Realty Corporation. 
Complainant  sought  to  recover  Moran  property  by  filing  with  the  them  CFI  Baguio  an  action  for  reconveyance  with  damages.  During  the  pendencey  of  the  action  for 
reconveyance, complainant filed this administrative case to disbar the respondent. 
 
Allegations of complainant: 
● Respondent maliciously appropriated the property in trust knowing that it did not belong to him 
● Respondent’s  auditing  firm  excluded  the  Moran  property  from  the  inventory  YET  included  the  Moran  property  in  the  claims  against  the  estate  the  amounts  P65k 
and P75k which respondent represented as complainant’s husband’s loans applied “probably for the purchase of a house and lot in Moran” 
● Conflict  of  interest-  Respondent’s  law  firm  filed  the  petition  for  the  settlement  of  her  husband’s  estate  in  court,  while  respondent’s  auditing  firm  acted  as  accountant 
of both the estate and two of its creditors. 
 
CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance 
CA reversed the trial court. Respondent was the absolute owner of the Moran property. 
 
OSG submitted report on disbarment complaint: 
●   · NO trust agreement between Nakpil and respondent 
●   · Respondent was the absolute owner of the property 
●   · No conflict of interest 
●   · Recommendation: dismissal of administrative case 
 
 
ISSUE:  
1) WON respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. (RELATED TO CANON 15 OUR TOPIC), YES 
2) WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CANON 17), YES 
 
RULING: 
1.  (IMPORTANT) General  Rule:  An  attorney  cannot  represent  adverse  interests.  Exception:  Representation  of  conflicting  interests  may  be  allowed  where  the  parties  consent 
to  the  representation,  after  full  disclosure  of  the  facts.  Disclosure  alone  is  not  enough  for  the  clients  must  give  their  informed  consent  to  such  representation.  The  lawyer 
must explain to his clients the nature and extent of conflict and possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his clients. 
In the present case, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other.  
 
•  Respondent  denied  that  he  represented  complainant  in  the  intestate  proceedings.  He  points  out  that  it  was  one  Atty  Percival  Cendana,  who  filed  the  case  in  court.  However, 
that is beside the point. Respondent acted as counsel and accountant of complainant after the death of Jose Nakpil. 
 
• When he transferred the Moran property to his corporation, the intestate proceedings was still pending in court.  
 
•  His  defense  that  complainant  knew  that  his  law  firm  was  legal  counsel  of  the  estate  and  that  his  accounting  form  was  the  auditor  of  both  the  estate  and  the  two  claimants 
against  it  was  not  taken  by  the  Court.  There  is  nothing  in  the  records  to  show  that  respondent  or  his  law  firm  explained  the  legal  situation  and  its  consequences  to 
complainant.  
 
Respondent  is  a  CPA-lawyer  actively  participating  in  both  professions.  He  is  the  senior  partner  in  his  law  and  accounting  firms.  Complainant  is  not  charging  respondent  with 
breach  of  ethics  for  being  the  common  accountant  of  the  estate  and  the  two  creditors.  He  is  charged  for  allowing  his  accounting  firm  to  represent  two  creditors  of  the  estate, 
and at the same time allowing his law firm to represent the estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented. 
 
2.  In  violation  of  the  trust  agreement,  respondent  claimed  absolute  ownership  over  the  property  and  refused  to  sell  the  property  to  complainant  after  the  death  of  Jose  Nakpil. 
Respondent  initially  acknowledged  and  respected  the  trust  nature  of  the  Moran  property.  Respondent  exercised  bad  faith  in  transferring  the  property  to  his  family 
corporation.  
  
Respondent’s  act  of  excluding  Moran  property  lack  of  fidelity  to  the  cause  of  his  client  (Canon  17)  If  he  truly  believed  that  it  was  his,  he  should  have  formally  presented  his 
claim  in  the  intestate  proceedings  instead  of  transferring  it  to  his  own  company  and  concealing  it  from  complainant.  His  misuse  of  his  legal  expertise  to  deprive  his  client  of 
the Moran property is clearly unethical. 
 
Petitioner is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year 

12  PNB v CEDO, Adm.  PARTIES: Philippine National Bank, complainant vs. Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, respondent 
Case No. 3701,  PONENTE: Bidi, J.  
March 28, 1995;  CASE:  
(CRUZ)   
FACTS: 
● PNB  charged  Atty.  Cedo  who  was  a  former  Assistant  Vice  President  of  the  Asset  Management  Group  for  the  violation  of  Canon  6,  Rule  6.03  of  the  Code  of 
Professional Responsibility: 
○ “A  Lawyer  shall  not,  after  leaving  government  service,  accept  engagement  or  employment  in  connection  with  any  matter  in  which  he  had  intervened 
while in said service” 
● PNB averred that while Atty. Cedo participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets in favor of Milagros Ong for P200,000.  
● He noted that the gate passes were issued by his subordinate, Mr. Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull out of the steel sheets.  
● When a civil action arose from the said transaction between Mrs. Siy and PNB, Atty. Cedo had left the said Bank and appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Siy.  
● While  Atty.  Cedo  was  still  the  VP  of  PNB,  he  intervened  in  the  handling  of  the  loan  account  of  Sps.  Almeda.  And  When  a  Civil  action  was  filed  by  the  Sps.  against 
the Bank, said spouses were represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates”of which Atty. Cedo was one of the Senior Partners.  
● Atty.  Cedo  Admitted  that  he  appeared  fro  Mrs.  Siy  only  for  the  execution  pending  appeal  of  RTC  decision.  He  did  not  participate  in  the  litigation  of  the  case  before 
said court.  
● Also, he averred that he did not enter into general partnership with Atty. Ferrer.  
○ They  only  used  his  name  to  designate  a  law  firm  maintained  by  lawyers  who  although  not  partners,  maintain  one  office  as  well  as  one  clerical  and 
supporting staff.  
○ Each one handles their own cases independently and individually receives the revenues therefrom.  
● IBP  noted  that  assuming  the  alleged  set-up  of  the  firm  to  be  true,  it  is  an  itself  a  violation  of  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility  Rule  15.02  since  the  client’s  secrets 
and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times.  
● Also,  IBP  found  that  there  was  a  deliberate  intent  on  the  part  of  Atty.  Cedo  to  devise  ways  and  means  to  attract  as  clients  former  borrowers  of  bank  since  he  was  in 
the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer.  
● Thus, IBP recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 3 years.  
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cedo is guilty of violating canon 6?  
HELD: Yes 
● In  the  case,  the  conflicting  interest  is  very  much  apparent.  Having  been  an  executive  of  PNB,  Atty.  Cedo  now  seeks  to  litigate  as  counsel  for  the  opposite  side,  a 
case  against  his  former  employer  involving  a  transaction  which  he  formerly  handled  while  still  an  employee  of  the  bank  is  a  clear  violation  of  Canon  6  of  the 
Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interest: 
○ "It  is  unprofessional  to  represent  interests,  except  by  express  conflicting  consent  of  all  concerned  given  after  a  full  disclosure  of  the  facts.  Within  the 
meaning  of  this  canon,  a  lawyer  represents  conflicting  interests  when,  in  behalf  of  one  client,  it  is  his  duty  to  contend  for  that  which  duty  to  another 
client requires him to oppose” 
● “With  these  thoughts  in  mind,  it  behooves  attorneys,  like  Caesar’s  wife,  not  only  to  keep  inviolate  the  client’s  confidence,  but  also  to  avoid  the  appearance  of 
treachery and double dealing.” 
SC DECISION: Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 years effectively.  
 CANON 16 – FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY 

13  In Re Atty.  PARTIES: 

Melchor E. Ruste,  Mateo San Juan, complainant 
Adm. Case No. 632,  Atty. Melchor Ruste, respondent 
June 27, 1940 (70   
PONENTE: Laurel 
Phil. 243)   
(DE JESUS)  CASE: Administrative complaint/disbarment case filed by Mateo San Juan against Melchor E. Ruste 
 
FACTS: 
● Melchor  E.  Ruste,  appeared  for  and  represented,  as  counsel,  Severa  Ventura  and  her  husband,  Mateo  San  Juan  in  a  cadastral  proceeding  and  there  was  no 
agreement  the  respondent  and  his  said  clients  as  to  the  amount  of  his  fees;  but  that  they  paid  to  him  upon  demand  on  different  occasions  the  sums  of  30  and  P25  as 
attorney's  fees.  After  making  the  payments,  Ruste  again  demanded  of  the  complainant  and  his  wife  as  additional  fees  the  sum  of  P25,  but  they  had  no  money  to  pay, 
him,  and  so  he  asked  them  to  execute  in  his  favor  a  contract  of  lease,  and  a  contract  of  sale,  of  their  share  in  said  lot  No.  3764  in  order  that  he  may  be  able  to  borrow 
or raise said sum of P25. 
● In  accordance  with  Ruste‘s  request,  the  complainant  and  his  wife  executed  on  Sept.  22,  1930,  a  contract  of  lease,  whereby  in  consideration  of  P100,  they  leased  to 
him  their  coconut  and  banana  plantation  in  lot  No.  3764  for  a  term  of  five  years,  and  also  a  deed  of  sale,  whereby  in  consideration  of  P1,000,  they  sold  and 
transferred  to  him  their  undivided  eleven-twentieth  (11/20)  share  in  said  lot  No  .  3764,  although,  in  fact  and  in  truth,  neither  of  the  consideration  mentioned  in 
said contracts of lease and sale were ever receive by them. 
● On  Mar  21,  1931,  the  respondent  executed  a  deed  of  sale,  whereby  in  consideration  of  P370  he  sold  and  transferred  to  Ong  Chua  said  undivided  eleven-twentieth 
(11/20)  share  in  lot  No.  3764  excluding  the  house  and  its  lot,  occupied  by  the  complainant  and  his  wife;  and  on  Mar  28,  1931,  the  respondent  executed  another  deed 
of  sale,  whereby  in  consideration  of  the  same  amount  of  P370  paid  to  him  by  the  same  Ong  Chua,  he  sold  and  transferred  to  the  latter  the  same  undivided 
eleven-twentieth (11/20) share in lot No. 3764. 
● On  Oct  10,  1933,  however,  the  respondent  notified  the  complainant  and  his  wife  in  writing  that  the  said  house  still  belonged  to  the  respondent,  and  requires  said 
spouses to pay, the sum of P40.50, representing ten months rental in arrears, and thereafter a monthly rental of P1.50. 
● Ruste did not turn over to the complainant and his wife the P370 paid by Ong Chua. 
 
ISSUE:  Whether  Melchor  E.  Ruste  violated  Rule  16.04  of  the  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility  by  raising  the  fund  due  him  through  machinations  similar  to 
lending/borrowing, YES 
 
HELD:  
● During  pendency  of  said  cadastral  case,  the  spouses  purportedly  leased  a  part  of  said  lot  to  Ruste  for  P100,  which  lease  was  cancelled  and  superseded  by  a  deed  of 
sale executed on the same date, whereby the said spouses, in consideration of P1,000, conveyed eleven-twentieth of the same land in favor of Ruste. 
● The  property  being  thus  in  suit,  which  the  respondent  was  waging  on  behalf  of  his  clients,  his  acquisition  thereof  by  the  deed  of  sale,  Exhibit  B,  constitutes 
malpractice. 
● Whether  the  deed  of  sale  in  question  was  executed  at  the  instance  of  the  spouses  driven  by  financial  necessity,  as  contended  by  the  respondent,  or  at  the  latter's 
behest, as contended by the complainant, is of no moment. 
● In  either  case  as  attorney  occupies  a  vantage  position  to  press  upon  or  dictate  his  terms  to  a  harassed  client,  in  breach  of  the  "rule  so  amply  protective  of  the 
confidential relations, which must necessarily exist between attorney and client, and of the rights of both. 
 
DISPOSITION: Atty. Melchor E. Ruste suspended for a period of 1 year