Attorney’s Fees,

® Dalupan v. Gacott. A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015,

Facts:
Corazon M. Dalupan hired Atty. Glenn C. Gacott to represent her and her son in two criminal
cases. Gacott charged an acceptance fee of P10,000, with Dalupan initially paying P5,000. She
later requested a motion to reduce bail, which Gacott refused, claiming it was beyond the scope
of his retainer. Dalupan then had another person draft the motion, which Gacott signed. Dalupan
later paid the remaining P5,000 but claimed Gacott neglected his duties, failing to attend
hearings, leading to the appointment of a counsel de oficio. Dalupan filed a disbarment
complaint against Gacott.

Issue:

Whether Gacott should return the acceptance fee of P5,000 to Dalupan.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment, agreeing with the IBP's findings
that Gacott did not commit abandonment or neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that Dalupan
voluntarily terminated Gacott's services, and thus, there was no abandonment of duty. The
Court also ruled that the P5,000 acceptance fee was non-refundable, as it compensated Gacott
for the opportunity cost of taking on the case, not contingent on the performance of legal work.
Therefore, there was no legal basis for the return of the fee.

Retaining Lien
® San Pedro v. Mendoza, A.C. No. 5440, Dec. 10, 2014; 5408, Feb. 07, 2017;

Facts:
Spouses San Pedro hired Atty. Mendoza in 1996 to facilitate the transfer of a property title. They
paid P68,250 for transfer taxes and P13,800 for legal fees. Despite repeated requests,
Mendoza failed to transfer the title or return the funds. The complainants eventually completed
the process themselves. Mendoza argued that delays were due to the complainants' failure to
provide documents and that the P13,800 fee was insufficient. The IBP found Mendoza at fault
and recommended his suspension for three months and the return of the funds.

Issues:

Whether he could retain the funds as attorney’s fees.

Ruling:
The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, ruling that Mendoza violated Canon 16 by not holding the
funds in trust and failed to return the money as demanded. The Court found no valid lien and
considered Mendoza's failure to return the funds as misappropriation. He was suspended for
three months and ordered to return P68,250.

Canon 4. Competence and Diligence.

® Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, Feb. 17, 2014;
Facts:
This case concerns a long-running dispute among the heirs of the late Don Filemon Y. Sotto
over the ownership and partition of four real properties. Matilde S. Palicte, one of the heirs,
successfully redeemed four properties in her name following a public auction. However, other
heirs contested Matilde’s ownership, and the Supreme Court had previously ruled in her favor.
In 1999, the heirs of Marcelo and Miguel filed a partition case against Matilde, arguing the
properties belonged to the estate, but Matilde moved to dismiss, citing prior judgments barring
the action.

Issues:

1. Whether the partition action was barred by prior judgments (res judicata).

Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the partition case, ruling that the action was barred
by res judicata. It emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioners were already conclusively
resolved in prior cases, and the petitioners, as successors-in-interest, were bound by the
previous rulings. The Court also noted that the petitioners’ attempt to relitigate the same issues
amounted to forum shopping. Matilde's ownership of the properties was upheld, and the
petitioners were barred from pursuing the partition claim.

® Tejano v. Baterina, A.C. No. 8235, Jan. 27, 2015;

Facts:
In 2009, Joselito F. Tejano filed a complaint against Judge Dominador LL. Arquelada and his
counsel, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina. Tejano accused Judge Arquelada of collusion and
misconduct regarding a property dispute, as well as accusing Atty. Baterina of gross negligence.
Tejano’s criticisms of Atty. Baterina included his failure to object to the waiver of their right to
present evidence, his failure to file a motion for reconsideration, declaring no witnesses would
be presented without client consultation, and not submitting a formal offer of exhibits. Atty.
Baterina also failed to inform the court about his prior two-year suspension from practicing law.

Issues:

Whether Atty. Baterina was negligent in his representation of Tejano and his family.
Court’s Decision:
The Court ruled that Atty. Baterina was grossly negligent in failing to inform both the RTC and
his clients about his suspension and in neglecting his duties by not complying with court orders.
His conduct demonstrated a pattern of unprofessionalism. Considering his prior suspension, the
Court imposed a five-year suspension from the practice of law, finding this penalty appropriate
for his repeated misconduct.

® Gimena v. Sabio, A.C. No. 7178, Aug. 23, 2016,

Facts:

Vicente M. Gimena, president of Simon Peter Equipment and Construction Systems, Inc., hired
Atty. Salvador T. Sabio for a case of illegal dismissal (RAB Case No. 06-11-10970-99). Sabio
filed a position paper signed by Gimena, but without Sabio’s signature. The labor arbiter ordered
Sabio to sign within ten days, but Sabio ignored the directive, leading to the dismissal of the
paper and a decision against Gimena's company. Sabio failed to inform Gimena about the
decision, preventing him from appealing in time. Gimena filed a disbarment complaint, and
Sabio attributed his negligence to non-payment of fees, arguing the decision was based on
merit. The IBP found Sabio guilty of gross negligence.

Issues:

Whether Sabio’s negligence in handling the case justifies disciplinary action.

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, confirming the existence of an attorney-client
relationship. Sabio’s failure to sign the position paper and notify his client about the adverse
decision constituted gross negligence, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Given
his prior disciplinary history, Sabio was suspended for three years, underscoring the importance
of diligence and responsibility in legal practice.

Canon 5. Equality
® Espejon v. Judge Loredo, A.M. No. MTJ-22-007, Mar. 9, 2022,

Facts:

Complainants Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita accused Judge Jorge Lorredo of bias
and prejudgment in handling their unlawful detainer case. They claimed his remarks on their
sexual orientation during a preliminary conference were influenced by his religious beliefs.
Judge Lorredo denied these allegations, asserting that his comments were intended to guide
settlement discussions. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) found him guilty of grave misconduct,
recommending a fine of PHP 40,000.

Issue:

Whether Judge Lorredo should be held administratively liable for his biased remarks and
prejudgment during the conference.

Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court found Judge Lorredo guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming
of a judge, not grave misconduct. The Court fined him PHP 50,000 and imposed a 30-day
suspension, emphasizing the need for impartiality and decorum in judicial proceedings.

® Nery v. Sampana, A.C. No. 10196, Sept. 9, 2014,

Facts:

Melody R. Nery hired Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana for an annulment and adoption case. After
paying him ₱200,000 for the annulment and ₱100,000 for the adoption, Sampana falsely
claimed that he filed the adoption petition. Nery later discovered from the court that no petition
had been filed. Despite repeated demands, Sampana failed to refund the ₱100,000 paid for the
adoption.

Issues:

1. Whether Atty. Sampana's failure to file the adoption petition and misleading Nery
constituted malpractice.

Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court found Sampana guilty of malpractice for failing to file the adoption petition
and misleading his client. Given his previous disciplinary history, the Court increased the penalty
to a three-year suspension from the practice of law, along with ordering Sampana to return the
₱100,000 to Nery with interest. A warning was also issued regarding similar future misconduc

Canon 6. Accountability. Discipline of Lawyers

Roque v. Armed Forces of the Philippines, G.R. No. 214986, Feb. 15, 2017

Atty. Roque, representing the family of Jeffrey Laude, attempted to visit US Marine Pemberton
at Camp Aguinaldo, despite being barred by military personnel. After a confrontation, Lt. Col.
Cabunoc publicly announced a disbarment complaint against Roque. Roque filed a petition for
indirect contempt, claiming the public pronouncement violated the confidentiality rule in
disbarment proceedings.
Issue:

Whether the public pronouncement of the disbarment complaint violated the confidentiality rule
under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Court’s Decision:

The Court ruled that while disbarment proceedings are confidential, the respondents' public
announcement did not breach the confidentiality rule. The statement was considered an official
response to a public matter involving significant public interest.

,
Palad v. Solis, G.R. No. 206691, Oct. 03, 2016;

Sui Generis
Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, Jan. 13, 2013;
Bernaldez v. Anquilo-Garcia, A.C. 8698, Aug. 31, 2016;
How Instituted
Navarro v. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No.313, Jan. 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 586,
Christian Spiritists of the Philippines v. Mangallay, A.C. No. 10483, Mar. 18, 2016;

Jurisdiction over Government Lawyers

Alicias v. Macatangay, A.C. 7478, Jan. 11, 2017,
Trovela v. Robles, A.C. No. 11550, June 4, 2018;

Due Process, Natanauan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 4269, Oct. 11, 2016,
In Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, Jan. 30, 2013;

Imprescriptibility Calo v. De Gamo, A.C. 516, June 27, 1967,

Bengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012

Proceedings,
Tamaray v. Daquis, A.C. No. 10868, Jan. 16, 2016;
Festin v. Zubiri, A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017;

Contempt,
Montecillo v. Gica, G.R. L-36800, Oct. 21, 1974;
Laurel v. Francisco, A.M. No. RTJ- 06-1992, July 6, 2010

Effect of Pardon,
In re Atty. Tranquilino Rovero, A.C. No. 126, Dec. 29, 1980