#1  PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for

G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005 respondents Tan, Respondent Mendoza allegedly "intervened" in the
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioners, acquisition of GENBANK by respondents Tan, et al. when, in his capacity
vs. as then Solicitor General, he advised the Central Bank’s officials on
SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division), LUCIO C. TAN, the procedure to bring about GENBANK’s liquidation and appeared as
PUNO, J.:
counsel for the Central Bank in connection with its petition for assistance
in the liquidation of GENBANK
FACTS:
 The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
 In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from
financial difficulties, they had extended considerable financial support to accepting "engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings which he had intervened while in said service."
on its current account with the Central Bank.1 It was later found by the
ISSUE:
Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans to directors,
officers, stockholders and related interests of which 59% was classified as WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
doubtful and ₱0.505 million as uncollectible. respondent Mendoza. Again, the prohibition states: "A lawyer shall not, after
 The Central Bank extended emergency loans to GENBANK. Despite leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection
the mega loans, GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service."
Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and
unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the HELD:
general public, and ordering its liquidation. NO. It is also submitted that the Court should apply Rule 6.03 in all its
 A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held, wherein the Lucio strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who "switch sides." It is claimed that
Tan group submitted the winning bid. former Solicitor General Estelito "switching sides" carries the danger that former government employee may
P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then Court of First Instance praying compromise confidential official information in the process. But this concern
for the assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANK’s liquidation does not cast a shadow in the case at bar. As afore-discussed, the act of
as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 265. respondent Mendoza in informing the Central Bank on the procedure how to
 February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos government. liquidate GENBANK is a different matter from the subject matter of Civil Case
One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino was to establish the No. 0005 which is about the sequestration of the shares of respondents Tan,
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover the et al., in Allied Bank. Consequently, the danger that confidential official
alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family information might be divulged is nil, if not inexistent. To be sure, there are no
and his cronies. inconsistent "sides" to be bothered about in the case at bar. For there is no
 PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for "reversion, question that in lawyering for respondents Tan, et al., respondent Mendoza is
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages" against not working against the interest of Central Bank. On the contrary, he is
respondents Lucio Tan, et al the PCGG issued several writs of indirectly defending the validity of the action of Central Bank in liquidating
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the above-named GENBANK and selling it later to Allied Bank. Their interests coincide instead of
persons by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with colliding. It is for this reason that Central Bank offered no objection to the
former President Marcos. lawyering of respondent Mendoza in Civil Case No. 0005 in defense of
 After the filing of the parties’ comments, this Court referred the cases to respondents Tan, et al. There is no switching of sides for no two sides are
the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition espondents Tan, et al. were involved.
represented by their counsel, former Solicitor General Estelito P.
Mendoza, who has then resumed his private practice of law. There is no charge against respondent Mendoza that he advised Central Bank
on how to liquidate GENBANK with an eye in later defending respondents Tan,
 et al. of Allied Bank. Indeed, he continues defending both the interests of mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of
Central Bank and respondents Tan, et al. in the above cases. Jehovah. "The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a
young lawyer, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
#2 professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must
A.C. No. L-1117 March 20, 1944
be the outcome of character and conduct."
THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant,
(Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
vs.
ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent.
OZAETA, J.:

FACTS:

 Respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for

having published an advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13,
1943, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement;
but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its
publication and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court,
promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to
abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession."
 he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in
the Tribune and that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.
 It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation
by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen
solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly
provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice."

ISSUE:

WON the respondent violated the CPR?

HELD:

YES. Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the
misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so decided that the respondent
should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
#3
 It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a A.C. No. 6903 April 16, 2012
merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, Complainant,
lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the vs.
practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, Respondent.
public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for two years
from the practice of law.
FACTS: ISSUE:

 January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan engaged the WON Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional
legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity Responsibility?
of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each.
HELD:
 Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare amounts for
the expenses. For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire YES. Indisputably, Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn
from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation and Petition for Review,12 he
made her believe that the two cases were already filed before the himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzette’s case as well as to
Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and awaiting notice of hearing. account and return the funds she entrusted to him. respondent Atty. Arnel C.
 Sometime in July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of
verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
while the case of Tuparan had been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
has yet been filed for her. dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the
 Hence, Suzette demanded the refund of the total amount of full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED
PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of to submit to the Court proof of such payment.
PhP63,000.00 on staggered basis claiming to have incurred expenses in
the filing of Tuparan’s case, to which she agreed. On the same occasion, He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention to
Atty. Capistrano handed to her copies of her unfiled petition, 3 Tuparan’s breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is his first offense; and that his profession is the
petition4 and his Withdrawal of Appearance5 in Tuparan’s case with only means of his and his family’s livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged
instructions to file them in court, as well as a list6 containing the expenses amount of PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount
he incurred and the schedule of payment. of PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of PhP5,000.00.
 However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of Consequently, Commissioner Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD Board of Governors
PhP5,000.00 refused to communicate with her, prompting the institution of correctly recommended the appropriate penalty of one year suspension from the
this administrative complaint. practice of law for violating the pertinent provisions of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility, thus:
 the Court resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. For failure of
respondent Atty. Capistrano to appear at the mandatory conference set by CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD), the conference was terminated without any
admissions and stipulations of facts and the parties were ordered to file RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
their respective position papers to which only Atty. Capistrano complied.
 through Commissioner Quisumbing, found that Atty. Capistrano had
RULE 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from
neglected his client’s interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status
his own and those of others kept by him.
of her case and to file the agreed petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty,
AND DILIGENCE.
probity and good demeanor. Hence, he was held guilty of violating Rule
18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
xxx
 RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information.

when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of
vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable
not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and
society.13 His workload does not justify neglect in handling one’s case because
it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently
handle

Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to
his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and
apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for
the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately
upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has
misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of
funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 15

To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. 16 Falling short
#4
of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by
[ A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015 ]
imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion
JOSELITO F. TEJANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA,
in consideration of the surrounding facts.
RESPONDENT.

CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

 On 26 March 2009, Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint[1]

before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court
against Judge Dominador LL. Arquelada, Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Vigan City, and Tejano's own counsel, Atty. Baterina.
 Tejano accused Judge Arquelada of acting in conspiracy with Atty. Court's indulgence and said that his failure to comply was "not at all
Baterina for the former to take possession of his (Tejano) property, which intended to show disrespect to the orders of the Honorable Tribunal."
was the subject matter of litigation in the judge's court.  First, it appears that respondent's failure to appear in representation of his
 The lot was wholly owned by Tejano's family, but the Province of Ilocos clients in the said civil case before the RTC was due to his two-year
Sur constructed an access road stretching from the provincial highway in suspension from the practice of law in 2001. While this is a justified reason
the east to the provincial government's motor pool in the west without for his non-appearance, respondent, however, manifestly failed to properly
instituting the proper expropriation proceedings. inform the RTC of this fact. That way, the RTC would have, in the
 Tejano accused Judge Arquelada of colluding with Atty. Baterina in the meantime, ordered plaintiffs to seek the services of another lawyer.
former's bid to "take possession" of their property and was "collecting  Moreover, while he relayed such fact of suspension to his clients, there is
rentals from squatters who had set up their businesses inside the whole of no showing that he explained the consequences to them, or that he
Lot. advised them to seek another counsel's assistance in the meantime.
 In support of his accusations, Tejano attached a copy of Transfer Clearly therefore, respondent's inaction falls short of the diligence required
Certificate of Title No. T-43004[5] covering Lot No. 5663 in the name of of him as a lawyer.
Karen Laderas, purportedly the daughter of Judge Arquelada; receipts of  Second, it must be recalled that the RTC in the said case required the
rents paid to Terencio Florendo,[6] sheriff at Judge Arquelada's sala at the plaintiffs therein to submit their formal offer of evidence. However,
Vigan City RTC; receipts of rents paid to Aida Calibuso,[7] who was respondent did not bother to do so, in total disregard of the RTC's Order
expressly designated by Laderas as her attorney-in-fact[8] in collecting
ISSUE:
said rents; and receipts of rents paid to Edgar Arquelada, Judge
Arquelada's brother. WON atty Baterina violated CPR?
 Tejano claims that Atty. Baterina "miserably failed to advance [his] cause."
Specifically, Tejano alleged that Atty. Baterina (1) failed to object when the HELD: YES
trial court pronounced that he and his co-plaintiffs had waived their right to
it is clear that respondent's acts constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action
present evidence after several postponements in the trial because his
against him. His gross negligence under the circumstances cannot be
mother was ill and confined at the hospital;[10] (2) manifested in open
countenanced. It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that respondent be
court that he would file a motion for reconsideration of the order declaring
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, and be fined in the amount of
their presentation of evidence terminated but failed to actually do so;[11]
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), considering that this is his second disciplinary
(3) not only failed to file said motion for reconsideration, but also declared
action.
in open court that they would not be presenting any witnesses without
consulting his clients;[12] and (4) failed to comply with the trial court's A lawyer even one suspended from practicing the profession owes it to his client to
order to submit their formal offer of exhibits. not "sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty." The client
 Tejano was informed to file the complaint against his counsel at the Office "should never be left groping in the dark" and instead must be "adequately and
of the Bar Confidant, and that the complaint against Judge Arquelada was fully informed about the developments in his case."
already "being acted upon" by the OCA
 The Court required Atty. Baterina to file a Comment on the complaint
within 10 days from notice.[15] Failing to comply with the Court's order, Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when he allowed the
Atty. Baterina was ordered to show cause why he should not be proceedings to run its course without any effort to safeguard his clients'
disciplinarily dealt with and once again ordered to comply with the Court's welfare in the meantime. His failure to file the required pleadings on his clients'
6 July 2009 Order. behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional
 Atty. Baterina explained that he had been recuperating from a kidney Responsibility[29] and renders him subject to disciplinary action.[30] The
transplant when he received a copy of the complaint. He begged the penalties for a lawyer's failure to file the required brief or pleading range from
warning, reprimand, fine, suspension, or in grave cases, disbarment.
he Court notes that in 2001, Atty. Baterina was also suspended for two years
after being found guilty of gross misconduct.[35] In that case, Araceli Sipin-
Nabor filed a complaint against Atty. Baterina for failing to file her Answer with
Counterclaim in a case for quieting of title and recovery of possession where
she and her siblings were defendants. Because of such failure, Sipin-Nabor
was declared by the trial court to be in default and unable to present her
evidence, and which, in turn, resulted in a decision adverse to her.

Atty. Baterina was also found to have "convert[ed] the money of his client to
his own personal use without her consent" and "deceiv[ed] the complainant
into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used for filing an
answer with counterclaim," which he never did.

The Court likewise noted in that case Atty. Baterina's "repeated failure to
comply with the resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the
complaint [which] indicates a high degree of irresponsibility tantamount to
willful disobedience to the lawful orders of the Supreme Court."[36]

These two disciplinary cases against Atty. Baterina show a pattern of

neglecting his duty to his clients, as well as a propensity for disrespecting the
authority of the courts. Such incorrigible behavior is unacceptable and will not
be tolerated among the members of the Bar.

For this reason, the Court deems it proper to impose on Atty. Baterina a longer
suspension period of five (5) years.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is found GUILTY of gross

negligence. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years. He
is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense
will be dealt with more severely