Derecho, Fe A.

Francisco vs Portugal, A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006

FACTS:

Informations were filed against SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donatao F. Tan
and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin before the Sandiganbayan for they were involved in a
shooting incident for murder and frustrated murder eventually they were convicted.
Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused. More than a
year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally verify the
status of the petition and they were shocked that their petition was denied due to late
filing and non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained finality and
warrants of arrest had already been issued against them. Complainants filed before the
Supreme Court an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal
(respondent) for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence
for alleged mishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality.
Respondent contends that he was not the original counsel of the accused. He was
merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be
present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision and the petition was filed
within the reglementary period.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in

RULING:

Yes. Supreme Court ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the
practice of law for three months. The Supreme Court agreed to the IBP that the
dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of the
respondent once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity
to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause.
Derecho, Fe A.

Libit vs Oliva, A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1944

FACTS:

Judge Donimgo Panis in civil case of Pedro Cutingting versus Alfredo Tan hereby
odered the NBI Director to conduct an investigation to determine the author of the
falsified Sheriff’s return in the said case. As a result of which, the NBI charged
respondents Attys. Edelson Oliva and Florando Umali for obstruction of justice.
The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines.
In view of NBI’S report that Umali’s signature in the complaint in the civil case
was not his, the case was dismissed with respect to him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated Code of Ethics.

RULING:

Yes. After the careful review of the record of the case and the report and
recommendation of the IBP, the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva
committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by the court of its disciplinary
powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in this case indubitably
reveal respondent’s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons
of Professional Ethics. A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of
his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious
intentions against the other party.
In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of
his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall be mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme
penalty of Disbarment. His license to practice law in the Philippines is Cancelled and the
Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Derecho, Fe A.

Sousa vs Tinampay, A.C. No. 7428 November 25, 2019

FACTS:

Victoria C. Sousa filed for disbarment / suspension against Att. J. Tinampay for
professional misconduct and malpractice, fraud, misrepresentation and conflict of
interest. According to the complainant, respondent did not enter his appearance as her
counsel in the proceedings before the MCTC. Further, during the pre-trial of the refilled
case in the RTC, complainant was declared in default since neither she nor her former
counsel appeared; and although respondent was present, he remained silent and did
not submit any notice for his substitution as the new counsel of the complainant.
Respondent never admitted in open court that he is the legal counsel of the
complainant, but he continuously accepted payment from the complainant. He insisted
that Atty. Teofisto Cabilan was the counsel of record of the complainant, and that he
represented complainant engaging him as counsel. He admitted though that he had
billed complainant for the case and was paid for the referral fee. Complainant insisted in
her Petition for Review on Certiorari that respondent is her counsel considering that she
even executed an SPA authorizing him to appear and represent her in civil case.
Respondent never denied the validity and due execution of the Special Power of
Attorney.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is

RULING:

No. The Court finds that respondent was negligent and unmindful of his sworn
duties to complainant. Accordingly, the Court Suspends him from the practice of law
for one year effective immediately upon receipt of the decision. He is sternly warned
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severly in the
future. Respondent is likewise ordered to return the amounts computed at the
exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment which shall earn legal interest at
the rate of 6% per annum form the finality of the decision until fully paid. Respondent
shall submit to the Court proof of restitution within ten day from payment. Failure to
comply with this directive shall warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.