GEORGE C. SOLATAN v. ATTYS. OSCAR A. INOCENTES and JOSE C. CAMANO A.C. No. 6504, 9 August 2005, SECOND DIVISION (Tinga, J .) .) Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying tenants occupying the Genito Apartments. Solatan’s sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to Solatan and other members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments. During the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister, including awarded attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half of the attorney’s fees. Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the writ of execution and levied the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied properties and allow complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camano’s advice, complainant presented an affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying. Complainant filed the instant administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2) Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: All lawyers must observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. 1. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. No employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was
the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have no interest over the properties. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal. 2. Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of the law office, 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. Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings with complainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. 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 persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. RULE 18.03 Villaflores v Atty. Limos AC No. 7504, Nov 23,2007 (TABAG) FACTS: Complaint for disbarment filed by Virginia Villaflores against Atty. Sinamar Limos because of Gross Negliegence and Dereliction of Duty Atty. Limos was the counsel of Villaflores in another case filed before the RTC where the latter is a defenadant. Before this, Atty. Limos’ handled a case for Villaflores’ son. In the original case where Villaflores was a defendant, the RTC rendered a judgment unfavorable to Villaflores. She wanted to appeal. She initially sought PAO’s (Public Attorney’s Office) services but decided to solicit the services of Atty. Limos. Villaflores initially paid her 10,000 (on Sept 8, 2004) , then another 10,000 (on Sept 9, 2004), then another 2,000 for miscellaneous expenses (on Sept 21, 2004). Atty. Limos was paid a total of 22,000 duly receipted and acknowledged by the latter. Subsequent to the payments, on Sept 21, 2004, an Employment Contract was signed by Atty. Limos and VIllaflores to formally engage the lawyer’s professional services. However, Villaflores’ appeal (the original case) was dismissed because Atty. Limos was not able to file an appellant’s brief within the required reglementary period. After knowledge of this, there have been many unsuccessful attempts by Villaflores to see Atty. Limos, the lawyer refusing to talk to V illaflores. Villaflores filed a complaint with the IBP, the Comission of Bar disciplined that Atty. Limos should be declared guilty of gross negligence in failing to file the required appellant’s brief and should be suspended for 1 year and must return the 22,000 paid by Villaflores. The IBP Board of Governers adopted this resolition and modified it, suspending Atty. Limos for 3 months instead.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainant’s case as would warrant disciplinary action. HELD: Yes. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. To establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession. THUS, as early as Sept 8 (first payment was made), respondent was already considered as counsel and not merely on Sept 21 when the Employment Contract was signed. The acceptance of payment and the records of the case bars the attorney from disclaiming the existence of the attorney-client relationship. No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. Respondent’s defense that complainant failed to inform her of the exact date when to reckon the 45 days within which to file the appellant’s brief does not inspire belief or, at the very least, justify such failure. If anything, it only shows respondent’s cavalier attitude towards her client’s cause. CANOY vs ORTIZ, Court ruled that failure to file a position paper by the counsel is to be considered a violation of Rule 18.03. Same is true in this case. It was the lawyer’s duty to inform the client of the status of the case. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers states: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Failure of respondent to file the appellant’s brief for complainant within the reglementary period constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility