Lex Defender

Wilfredo Anglo, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Atty. Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Atty. Philip Z. Dabao, Atty. Lily Uyv Alencia, Atty. Joey P. De La Paz, Atty. Cris G. Dionela, Atty. Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Atty. Rodney K. Rubica, and Atty. Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa, Respondents. A.C. No. 10567, 25 February 2015 Facts:     Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case against the respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.     IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule on conflict of...

Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012 Facts:      According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40 million. Instead, the complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which the respondent ignored.     Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up t...

Felicitas S. Quiambao, Complainant, v. Atty. Nestor A. Bamba, Respondent A.C. No. 6708, 25 August 2005 Facts: Quiambao was the president and managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned security and investigation services company. She employed the legal services of Atty. Bamba, not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal case. In fact, Atty. Bamba acted as her counsel of record in an ejectment case. Atty. Bamba convinced the complainant to form a new security agency, QRMSI, with the former as a silent partner. She then resigned from AIB. However, about six months thereafter, Atty. Bamba filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin and damages against her for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. At this point, the ejectment case was still pending and he did not withdraw as counsel. It was also averred that Atty. Bamba also convinced the complainant’s brother to org...

Going to your relatives in Bulacan, from Laguna takes lot of planning and patience. Here are some tips to make travel less of a chore: 1. Travel light, pack light. Plan how many days you're going to stay and plan your clothes and other items accordingly. 2. Pack your electronic gadgets smartly. You may own a laptop, tablet and phone. Just bring the most useful one. My purpose is to visit my relatives and enjoy some time. I won't work during my vacation. A smartphone is okay for my needs. Just make you enough load to connect. Bring extra batteries, charger and selfie stick (forgot this...😣). Use cloud storage like Google drive to store photos... 3. Wear comfortable clothes. A gray cotton shirt, shorts and comfortable shoes are okay. Bring slippers to relax your feet. 4. Bring your essentials. Essentials may vary from person to person. For me, tissue paper, water, bath essentials, and supplements. If you have space, bring first aid kit. 5. Something to pass by time. In my s...

Alex B. Cueto, Complainant, v. Atty. Jose B. Jimenez, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 5798, 20 January 2005 Facts: Engr. Alex Cueto was contracted to build a building for PhP 5,000,000.00 for Jose Jimenez III. Cueto decided to have the contract notarized and he chose Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr., father of Jimenez III, to notarize the said contract. Before the notarization, the complainant did not how much will Atty. Jimenez be charging. So he was surprise when after the notarization, he was being asked to pay PhP 50,000.00. The complainant paid in cash the amount of PhP 30,000.00 and he issued a check worth PhP 20,000.00 to Atty. Jimenez. Later, the complainant advised the respondent not encash the check yet because he has insufficient funds. Notwithstanding, Atty. Jimenez still tried to encash the check hence it was dishonored. Atty. Jimenez then filed a criminal suit against Cueto. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jimenez, Jr.’s action is appropriate. Held: He violated Canon...

Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon, Complainants v. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra, Respondent A.C. No. 5482, 10 February 2015 Facts:     Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants , along with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned by the complainants. The names of petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as the vendee. The complainants claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and sister to have signed the document because they were somewhere else a...

Virgilio J. Mapalad, Jr., Complainant, v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, Respondent A.C. No. 10911, 6 June 2017 Facts:     Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent for presenting falsified Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Number without indicating the date of issue. The respondent used the said falsified MCLE Number in several legal pleadings against the complainant.     Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, a certification was issued stating the respondent has yet complied his MCLE requirements. The complainant filed his complaint against the respondent at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The complainant, thus, prayed for the IBP to recommend respondent’s disbarment.     The re...

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said org...

Elisa Venterez, Genero de Vera, Inocencia V. Ramirez, Pacita V. Mills, Antonina V. Palma and Ramon De Vera, Complainants, v. Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme , Respondent A.C. No. 7421, 10 October 2007 Facts: Venterez and friends hired Atty. Cosme as counsel for a land title dispute. The court ruled against the complainants. They wanted to file a motion of reconsideration but Atty. Cosme failed or refused to do so. Because of this, the complainants were constrained to contact another lawyer to prepare the motion for reconsideration. Atty. Cosme claims that the son of one of the complainants informed him that the complainants were withdrawing the case from him because he (the son) engaged another lawyer to take over the case. Atty. Cosme further explained that he even turned over the records of the case to the son, ceased to be counsel of the complainants. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of the Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held: The Supreme Co...

Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City, Complainant, v. Atty. Juan S. Dealca, Respondent A.C. No. 7474, 9 September 2014 Facts:     The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty. Ronando L. Gerona in a pending case docketed at the Court of Appeals wherein the complainant was the plaintiff-appellant.     The parties agreed upon PhP 15,000.00 as attorney’s fees with the following breakdown: 50% payable upon acceptance of the case; and the remaining balance upon termination of the case. Complainant paid the respondent PhP 7,500.00.     Prior to preparing the appellant’s brief, respondent demanded payment of PhP 4,000.00. The complainant obliged though it was contrary to the original agreement.     Before filing the appellant's brief, respondent demanded payment of the balance amounting to PhP 3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do s...

Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray, Complainant, v. Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis, Respondent A.C. No 10868, 26 January 2016 Facts:     Complainant filed a complaint affidavit before the IBP on 30 July 2007, alleging the respondent filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature on the Petition. She also alleged that the respondent signed the said Petition as “Counsel for the Petitioner.” referring to the complainant. The complainant stated the respondent was not her counsel but that of her husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     By pretending to be the counsel of the complainant, the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. For allowing the use of petition with the forged signature of the complainant, the respondent violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10...