SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6504. August 9, 2005.]

GEORGE C. SOLATAN , complainant, vs . ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES

and JOSE C. CAMANO , respondents.

Florando A. Umali for complainant.

SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; AN ATTORNEY GIVING LEGAL ADVICE TO A
PARTY WITH AN INTEREST CONFLICTING WITH THAT OF HIS CLIENT RESULTING IN
DETRIMENT TO THE LATTER MAY BE HELD GUILTY OF DISLOYALTY. — The relation of
attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. An attorney has no power
to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. To establish
the professional relation, it is su cient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are
sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession. At the time the questioned
statement was made, Atty. Camano had called the police to restrain complainant from
surreptitiously pulling out the levied properties from the apartment complex by virtue of
which the latter was brought to the police station for questioning. The statement was
made in response to complainant's insistence at the police station that the levied
properties were owned by him and not by the judgment debtor. No employment relation
was offered or accepted in the instant case. More tting, albeit, to the mind of this Court,
inapplicable to the case, is Canon 15 of the same Code which encompasses the
aforementioned rule. In general terms, Canon 15 requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all
dealings and transactions with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice
to a party with an interest con icting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the
latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney
which may have afforded an individual some relief adverse to the former's client may be
labeled as a culpable act of disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable
must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances.
2. ID.; ID.; RECOMMENDED ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE
OF LAW BASED ON RESPONDENT'S OTHER CULPABLE ACTS WHICH TEND TO DEGRADE
THE PROFESSION AND FOMENT DISTRUST IN THE INTEGRITY OF COURT PROCESSES
STANDS. — While the levy was made on chattel found in the apartment of the judgment
debtor, Gliceria Solatan, the complainant was the true owner of the properties.
Consequently, the latter had a right to recover the same. In fact, considering the
circumstances, the questioned statement is in consonance with complainant's foremost
duty to uphold the law as an o cer of the court. The statement of Atty. Camano in such a
context should not be construed by this Court as giving advice in con ict against the
interest of the spouses Genito as in fact the latter have no interest over the incorrectly
levied properties. We note that the act of informing complainant that the levied properties
would be returned to him upon showing proof of his ownership thereof may hint at
in delity to the interest of the spouses Genito, but, in this circumstance, lacks the essence
of double dealing and betrayal of the latter's con dence so as to deserve outright
categorization as in delity or disloyalty to his clients' cause. Nonetheless, after having
noted the foregoing, we remain convinced with the propriety of meting the one (1) year
suspension from the practice of law on Atty. Camano, as recommended by the IBP, based
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 on his other culpable acts which tend to degrade the profession and foment distrust in the
integrity of court processes.
3. ID.; ID.; NAME PRACTITIONER OF LAW OFFICE MAY BE HELD
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE BY VIRTUE OF HIS ASSOCIATE'S UNETHICAL ACTS; FAILURE
TO EXERCISE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OVER MATTERS UNDER THE CHARGE OF HIS
LAW FIRM IS A BLAMEWORTHY SHORTCOMING. — Atty. Inocentes seeks to distance
himself from the events that transpired and the reprimand resulting therefrom by asserting
that he was incorrectly punished for Atty. Camano's acts when his mere participation in the
asco was to refer complainant and his mother to Atty. Camano. However, it is precisely
because of such participation, consisting as it did of referring the complainant to his
associate lawyer, that Atty. Inocentes may be held administratively liable by virtue of his
associate's unethical acts. His failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters
under the charge of his law rm is a blameworthy shortcoming. The term "command
responsibility," as Atty. Inocentes suggests, has special meaning within the circle of men in
uniform in the military; however, the principle does not abide solely therein. It controls the
very circumstance in which Atty. Inocentes found himself.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; AS NAME PRACTITIONER OF THE LAW OFFICE, RESPONDENT IS
TASKED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT
ALL LAWYERS IN THE FIRM SHOULD ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. — We are not unaware of the custom of practitioners in
a law rm of assigning cases and even entire client accounts to associates or other
partners with limited supervision, if at all. This is especially true in the case of Attys.
Inocentes and Camano who, from the records, both appear to be seasoned enough to be
left alone in their work without requiring close supervision over each other's conduct and
work output. However, let it not be said that law rm practitioners are given a free hand to
assign cases to seasoned attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case. To
do so would be a disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which this
Court must jealously protect. That the rm name under which the two attorneys labored
was that of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law O ce does not automatically make Atty.
Inocentes the default lawyer acting in a supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano. It did,
however, behoove Atty. Inocentes to exert ordinary diligence to nd out what was going on
in his law rm. It placed in Atty. Inocentes the active responsibility to inquire further into
the circumstances affecting the levy of complainant's properties, irrespective of whether
the same were in fact events which could possibly lead to administrative liability.
Moreover, as name practitioner of the law o ce, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the
responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in
conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is not without reason or
consequence that Atty. Inocentes's name is that which was used as the o cial
designation of their law office.
5. ID.; ID.; PARTNERS AND PRACTITIONERS WHO HOLD SUPERVISORY
CAPACITIES ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO EXERT ORDINARY DILIGENCE IN
APPRISING THEMSELVES OF THE COMINGS AND GOINGS OF THE CASES HANDLED BY
THE PERSONS OVER WHICH THEY ARE EXERCISING SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY AND IN
EXERCISING NECESSARY EFFORTS TO FORECLOSE THE OCCURRENCE OF VIOLATIONS
OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BY PERSONS UNDER THEIR CHARGE.
— Law practitioners are acutely aware of the responsibilities that are naturally taken on by
partners and supervisory lawyers over the lawyers and non-lawyers of the law o ce. We
have held that lawyers are administratively liable for the conduct of their employees in
failing to timely le pleadings. In Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al.,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 partners in a law o ce were admonished for the contemptuous language in a pleading
submitted to court despite, and even due to, the fact that the pleading was not passed
upon by any of the partners of the o ce. We held therein that partners are duty bound to
provide for e cacious control of court pleadings and other court papers that carry their
names or the name of the law rm. We now hold further that partners and practitioners
who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in
apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the persons over
which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to
foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge. Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this
regard is by no means equivalent to that of the recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of
control and supervision exercised by said supervising lawyer varies, inter alia, according to
o ce practice, or the length of experience and competence of the lawyer supervised. Such
factors can be taken into account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer
charged with the supervision of a edgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear
greater responsibility for the culpable acts of the underling than one satis ed enough with
the work and professional ethic of the associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her
own devises.

DECISION

TINGA , J : p

The present case focuses on a critical aspect of the lawyer-client relationship — the
duty of loyalty. The delity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as
"undivided." This means that lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs
without interference or impairment from any conflicting interest.
This administrative case traces its roots from the manner by which Attys. Jose C.
Camano and Oscar A. Inocentes responded to the efforts of complainant, George C.
Solatan, to lease a certain Quezon City apartment belonging to the attorneys' clients. On
the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as "bordering on
technical extortion," accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and
casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved 1 to recommend the
suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year. It likewise
recommended the reprimand of Atty. Inocentes, whom it held liable for the
aforementioned acts of his associate, under the principle of command responsibility.
Only Atty. Inocentes has elected to contest the resolution of the IBP, as he
questions the propriety of his being held administratively liable for acts done by Atty.
Camano. 2 However, the recommendation to suspend Atty. Camano shall also be passed
upon by virtue of Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 3
Attys. Inocentes and Camano were both engaged in the practice of law under the
firm name of Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law O ce . Atty. Inocentes held o ce in his
home located at No. 19 Marunong St., Central District, Quezon City, while Atty. Camano
was stationed at an "extension office" of the firm located in 3rd/F, 956 Aurora Blvd., Quirino
Dist., Quezon City.
The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law O ce was retained by spouses Andres
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 and Ludivina Genito (spouses Genito), owners of an apartment complex (the Genito
Apartments) located at 259 Tandang Sora cor. Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, when the
Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG) on 9 July 1986. 4 The law o ce represented the spouses
Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan, and subsequently, with authority from the
PCGG, 5 in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.
6

Complainant's sister, Gliceria Solatan, was a tenant in Door 10, Phase B of the Genito
Apartments. It appears from the records that Gliceria Solatan left for the United States in
1986, and since then, the apartment was either intermittently used by members of her
family or placed under the charge of caretakers. 7 In August 1987, a complaint for
ejectment for non-payment of rentals was led against Gliceria Solatan. 8 On 3 March
1988, in a judgment by default, a Decision 9 was rendered ordering Gliceria Solatan to
vacate the premises of the apartment, pay the spouses Genito the amount of Thirty
Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P30,600.00) as unpaid rentals from February 1986 to July
1987 with interest at 24% per annum from 20 August 1987 until the premises are vacated,
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. 1 0
Complainant was occupying the subject apartment when he learned of the judgment
rendered against his sister. On 10 May 1988, prior to the implementation of a writ to
execute the judgment, complainant and his mother, Elvira Solatan, approached Atty.
Inocentes at his home o ce. Complainant informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to
arrange the execution of a lease contract by virtue of which complainant would be the new
lessee of the apartment and thus make possible his continued stay therein. Atty. Inocentes
referred complainant and his mother to his associate, Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge
of the ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito apartments. After the exchange,
complainant went to Atty. Camano at the satellite o ce of Atty. Inocentes's rm. From
here on out, events quickly turned sour. Different versions of subsequent events were
presented. The facts reproduced hereunder are by and large culled from the ndings of the
IBP Investigating Commissioner, Siegfred B. Mison. cEASTa

During the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which
complainant and his mother agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of Gliceria Solatan,
including fty percent of the awarded attorney's fees and One Thousand Six Hundred
Pesos (P1,600.00) as costs of suit provided that Atty. Camano would allow complainant's
continued stay at Door 10, Phase B of the Genito Apartments. As partial compliance with
the agreement, complainant issued in the name Atty. Camano a check for Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00) representing half of the P10,000.00 attorney's fees adjudged against
complainant's sister.
Complainant and his mother failed to make any other payment. Thus, the sheriff in
coordination with Atty. Camano and some policemen, enforced the writ of execution on 22
June 1988 and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. An attempt at
renegotiation took place at the insistence of complainant, resulting in Atty. Camano's
acquiescence to release the levied properties and allowing complainant to remain at the
apartment, subject to the latter's payment of costs incurred in enforcing the writ of
execution and issuance of postdated checks representing installment rental payments.
Complainant, thus, issued four (4) checks drawn on Far East Bank and Trust Company
dated the fteenth (15th) of July, August, September, and October 1988 each in the
amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P3,400.00). 1 1 Half of the amount
represented complainant's monthly rental, while the other half, a monthly installment for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 the payment of Gliceria Solatan's judgment debt.
On 28 June 1988, acting on the advice of Atty. Camano, complainant presented an
A davit of Ownership to the sheriff who then released the levied items to complainant.
However, a Northern Hill 3-burner gas stove was not returned to complainant. The stove
was in fact kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments wherein he
temporarily stayed 1 2 and, thereafter, turned over the same to a certain Recto Esberto,
caretaker of the Genito Apartments. 1 3
On 1 August 1988, complainant led the instant administrative case for disbarment
against Atty. Inocentes and Atty. Camano. 1 4 After formal investigation, and despite
con icting testimonies on the tenor and content of agreements and conversations, several
disturbing facts were revealed to have been uncontroverted — Atty. Camano's acceptance
from complainant of attorney's fees and the costs of implementing the writ of execution,
possession of complainant's levied Northern Hill oven, and advice to complainant on how
to recover the latter's levied items. Thus, IBP Investigating Commissioner Siegfred B.
Mison, made the following recommendations, viz:
Based on the facts revealed in their respective Memoranda, the penalty of
six (6) months suspension is therefore recommended to be imposed on
Respondent Camano for committing the following acts that adversely re ects
(sic) on his moral fitness to continue to practice law[:]
1. He received money (P5,000 then P1,000) from the adverse
party purportedly for attorneys fees and for reimbursement of sheriff's
expenses. Such act of accepting funds from the adverse party in the
process of implementing a writ, borders on technical extortion
particularly in light of the factual circumstances as discussed .
2. He gave unsolicited advice to the adverse party in suggesting
the ling of an A davit of Ownership over the levied properties, a
suggestion evidently in con ict with [the interest of] his own
client, supposedly, the Genitos .
3. H e failed to turn over the gas stove to either party
thereby casting doubt as to the procedure of the levy .

Based on the facts revealed, the penalty of Reprimand is therefore

recommended to be imposed on Respondent Inocentes for committing the
following acts that adversely re ects (sic) in his tness to continue to practice
law[:]

1. He allowed Camano to perform all the aforementioned

acts, either by negligence or inadvertence which are inimical to the
legal profession. He cannot claim ignorance or feign innocence in this
particular transaction considering that the Complainants themselves went
to his o ce on different occasions regarding this transaction. Ultimately,
he exercised command responsibility over the case and had
supervisory control over Respondent Camano inasmuch as he
received periodic reports either by phone or in person from the
latter .

2. The letter disclaimer executed by Mr. Genito led by

Respondent Inocentes does not mitigate any liability whatsoever since the
wrongdoing done against the profession cannot be undone by a mere letter
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 from a third party. 1 5 (Emphasis supplied.)

The IBP Board of Governors approved the aforequoted recommendation, with the
modi cation of an increase in Atty. Camano's period of suspension from six (6) months to
one (1) year, in a resolution stating, viz:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the of the Investigating
Commissioner . . . nding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, with modi cation, and for accepting
funds from adverse party in the process of implementing a writ borders on
technical extortion, for giving unsolicited advice to the adverse party a suggestion
evidently in con ict with [the interest of] his own client and for casting doubts to
the procedure of the levy, Atty. Jose C. Camano is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) year, likewise, Atty. Oscar Inocentes is hereby
REPRIMANDED for he exercised command responsibility over the case inasmuch
as he received periodic reports either by phone or in person. 1 6

The IBP held that Atty. Camano's act of giving unsolicited advice to complainant is a
culpable act because the advice con icted with the interest of his clients, the spouses
Genito. The rule on con icting interests, established in Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, deals with con icts in the interests of an attorney's actual
clients among themselves, of existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his
clients. It states that a lawyer shall not represent con icting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. SEcAIC

The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. 1 7 An
attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being
retained. 1 8 To establish the professional relation, it is su cient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his
profession. 1 9 At the time the questioned statement was made, Atty. Camano had called
the police to restrain complainant from surreptitiously pulling out the levied properties
from the apartment complex by virtue of which the latter was brought to the police station
for questioning. The statement was made in response to complainant's insistence at the
police station that the levied properties were owned by him and not by the judgment
debtor. 2 0 No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case.
More tting, albeit, to the mind of this Court, inapplicable to the case, is Canon 15 of
the same Code which encompasses the aforementioned rule. In general terms, Canon 15
requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all dealings and transactions with their clients. 2 1
Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest con icting with
that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty.
However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney which may have afforded an
individual some relief adverse to the former's client may be labeled as a culpable act of
disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the
surrounding circumstances.
While the levy was made on chattel found in the apartment of the judgment debtor,
Gliceria Solatan, the complainant was the true owner of the properties. Consequently, the
latter had a right to recover the same. In fact, considering the circumstances, the
questioned statement is in consonance with complainant's foremost duty to uphold the
law as an o cer of the court. The statement of Atty. Camano in such a context should not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 be construed by this Court as giving advice in con ict against the interest of the spouses
Genito as in fact the latter have no interest over the incorrectly levied properties.
We, thus, note that the act of informing complainant that the levied properties would
be returned to him upon showing proof of his ownership thereof may hint at in delity to
the interest of the spouses Genito, but, in this circumstance, lacks the essence of double
dealing and betrayal of the latter's con dence so as to deserve outright categorization as
in delity or disloyalty to his clients' cause. Nonetheless, after having noted the foregoing,
we remain convinced with the propriety of meting the one (1) year suspension from the
practice of law on Atty. Camano, as recommended by the IBP, based on his other culpable
acts which tend to degrade the profession and foment distrust in the integrity of court
processes.
On the other hand, Atty. Inocentes seeks to distance himself from the events that
transpired and the reprimand resulting therefrom by asserting that he was incorrectly
punished for Atty. Camano's acts when his mere participation in the asco was to refer
complainant and his mother to Atty. Camano.
However, it is precisely because of such participation, consisting as it did of
referring the complainant to his associate lawyer, that Atty. Inocentes may be held
administratively liable by virtue of his associate's unethical acts. His failure to exercise
certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law rm is a blameworthy
shortcoming. The term "command responsibility," as Atty. Inocentes suggests, has special
meaning within the circle of men in uniform in the military; however, the principle does not
abide solely therein. It controls the very circumstance in which Atty. Inocentes found
himself.
We are not unaware of the custom of practitioners in a law rm of assigning cases
and even entire client accounts to associates or other partners with limited supervision, if
at all. This is especially true in the case of Attys. Inocentes and Camano who, from the
records, both appear to be seasoned enough to be left alone in their work without
requiring close supervision over each other's conduct and work output. However, let it not
be said that law rm practitioners are given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned
attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case. To do so would be a
disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which this Court must
jealously protect. HScCEa

That the rm name under which the two attorneys labored was that of Oscar
Inocentes and Associates Law O ce does not automatically make Atty. Inocentes the
default lawyer acting in a supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano. It did, however, behoove
Atty. Inocentes to exert ordinary diligence to nd out what was going on in his law rm. It
placed in Atty. Inocentes the active responsibility to inquire further into the circumstances
affecting the levy of complainant's properties, irrespective of whether the same were in
fact events which could possibly lead to administrative liability. Moreover, as name
practitioner of the law o ce, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make
reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the rm should act in conformity to the
Code of Professional Responsibility. 2 2 It is not without reason or consequence that Atty.
Inocentes's name is that which was used as the official designation of their law office.
With regard to the actual existence of Atty. Inocentes's supervisory capacity over
Atty. Camano's activities, the IBP Investigating Commissioner based the same on his
nding that Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter's
dealings with complainant. This nding is the linchpin of Atty. Inocentes's supervisory
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof.
Law practitioners are acutely aware of the responsibilities that are naturally taken on
by partners and supervisory lawyers over the lawyers and non-lawyers of the law office. We
have held that lawyers are administratively liable for the conduct of their employees in
failing to timely le pleadings. 2 3 In Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et
al. , 2 4 partners in a law o ce were admonished for the contemptuous language in a
pleading submitted to court despite, and even due to, the fact that the pleading was not
passed upon by any of the partners of the o ce. We held therein that partners are duty
bound to provide for e cacious control of court pleadings and other court papers that
carry their names or the name of the law firm. 2 5
We now hold further that partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities
are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings
and goings of the cases handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory
authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. Nonetheless, the
liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means equivalent to that of the
recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of control and supervision exercised by said
supervising lawyer varies, inter alia, according to o ce practice, or the length of
experience and competence of the lawyer supervised. Such factors can be taken into
account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer charged with the supervision
of a edgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear greater responsibility for the
culpable acts of the underling than one satis ed enough with the work and professional
ethic of the associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her own devises.
While Atty. Camano's irregular acts perhaps evince a need for greater supervision of
his legal practice, there is no question that it has been Atty. Inocentes' practice to allow
wide discretion for Atty. Camano to practice on his own. It does constitute indifference
and neglect for Atty. Inocentes to fail to accord even a token attention to Atty. Camano's
conduct which could have brought the then impending problem to light. But such is not
equivalent to the proximate responsibility for Atty. Camano's acts. Moreover, it appears
from the records that Atty. Inocentes is a former judge and a lawyer who, as of yet, is in
good standing and it is the rst time in which Atty. Inocentes has been made to answer
vicariously for the misconduct of a person under his charge. An admonition is appropriate
under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Resolution dated 16 April 2004 is AFFIRMED in respect of the sanction meted out on Atty.
Camano. Atty. Inocentes is hereby ADMONISHED to monitor more closely the activities of
his associates to make sure that the same are in consonance with the Code of
Professional Responsibility with the WARNING that repetition of the same or similar
omission will be dealt with more severely.
No pronouncement as to costs. IDASHa

SO ORDERED.
Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. In its Resolution No. XVI-2004-231 dated 16 April 2004 for CBD Case No. 019 entitled
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 George C. Solatan v. Atty. Oscar A. Inocentes and Atty. Jose C. Camano, Rollo, pp. 703-
704.

2. Petition dated 28 July 2004, Rollo, p. 712-724.

3. Sec. 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors. — . . . (b) If the Board, by the
vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth
its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case,
shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
4. Rollo, p. 6. See also p. 25.
5. Id. at 79.
6. Id. at 25, 70, and 78. See also p. 78.
7. Id. at 409-414.
8. Entitled "Sps. Andres V. Genito & Ludivina L. Genito v. Gliceria Solatan," docketed as Civil
Case No. 51745.
9. Dated 3 March 1988 rendered by Judge Ricardo A. Buenviaje of MTC Quezon City,
Branch 38.
10. Rollo, pp. 77-78.
11. See Rollo, p. 58.
12. Id. at 581 and 624.
13. Id. at 581 and 624.
14. Id. at 136-150.
15. Id. at 708-709.
16. Supra note 1 at 703.
17. RUBEN E. AGPALO, COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, 2001 ed., p. 138, citing Stone v. Bank of
Commerce, 174 U.S. 412 (1899).
18. Id. at 138-39.
19. Id. at 139.
20. Rollo, p. 578.
21. Canon 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
22. Many jurisdictions in the United States have adopted Section 5.1 of the American Bar
Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which relevantly requires, first, that
partners make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has measures in effect to
assure that all lawyers in the form conform to the rules of professional conduct, and
second, that a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer make
reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to these rules. This explicit
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 responsibility was incorporated by some states in the late 1990's but was in theory
already being applied by several jurisdictions. See ZITRIN, RICHARD A., AND LANGFORD,
CAROL M., LEGAL ETHICS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, 2ND Ed., p. 658; see also
http:www.mass.gov/obcbbo/supervise.htm.
23. Adaza v. Barinaga, 192 Phil. 198 (1981).
24. G.R. No. L-22979, 26 June 1967, 20 SCRA 441.

25. Id. at 446.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com