set 4 digests

8/9/2019 Set 4 Digests

1/6

FERNANDEZ V. DE RAMOS-VILLALON

FACTSThis is an administrative case filed by petitioner Fernandez against Atty. Villalon.

It started from a case filed by a certain Carlos Palacios against Fernandez to nullify aDeed of Donation. Atty. Villalon represented Palacios in the early part of the case againstFernandez.

In !!"# Palacios# o$ner of a lot in %a&ati# sought the help of Fernandez to helphim in a case against a land'grabbing syndicate. Palacios $on the case $ith the help ofFernandez.

In (ept !!)# Palacios bumped into a %rs. *irio $ho e+pressed interest inbuying Palacios, %a&ati property. It turns out that it $as being sold by Fernandez $hoallegedly had a Deed of Donation $hich Palacios e+ecuted in his favor. This Deed ofDonation $as registered.

Palacios# $ith the help of Atty. Villalon# filed an action tto nullify the Deed againstFernandez. -o$ever# Fernandez ans$ered that the title transfer in his name $as proper#citing a Deed of Absolute (ale as basis. -e furthered alled that it $as actually Palacios$ho forged the Deed of Donation to cheat in ta+es.

In !!# Fernandez filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Villalon forviolation of /ule 0.!0# 1.!2# 0!.0# 0!.# 0!.2. -e claims that Atty. Villalon has suppressedand e+cluded in the complaint filed by her &no$ledge about the e+istence of the Deed ofAbsolute (ale# $hich $as by the $ay# unregistered. -e says that no mention of it $asmade in the petition for the annulment of thee Deed of Donation.

Commissioner of I3P recommended the dismissal of the case. (ustaining Atty.

Villalon,s argument that she# as counsel for Palacios# $as under no duty to include thefact that the Deed of (ale e+isted because only the client,s operative facts# and not otherevidentiary facts# need to be included in the complaint. The Deed of (ale $as a matter ofa defense that Fernandez as defendant can freely point out during the trial.

Fernandez appealed the case.

ISSUE456 there $as grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint.

HELD6one. Case against Villalon is dismissed.A la$yer# as an officer of the court# has the duty to be truthful in all his dealings.

-o$ever# this duty does not re7uire that the la$yer advance matters of defense on behalf

of his or her client,s opponent. (he 8Villalon9 is not duty bound to build the case for herclient,s opponent# Fernandez.

The cause of action chosen by Palacios $as for the annulment of the Deed ofDonation. Client Palacios informed her that the Deed of (ale $as void for lac& ofconsideration. Also# it $as not registered and $as not the basis of the transfer of title ofPalacios, property to Fernandez. Therefore# it is not a necessary evidence5fact to theircase.

FUDOT V. CATTLEYA LAND

FACTSDe *a (erna a re7uested for the inhibition of Associate :ustice Dante ;. Tinga claiming

that :ustice Tinga# $ho $as the ponente of the decision# received P0! %illion from %r. :ohnny Chanin e+change for a favorable decision. De la serna alleges JOHNNY CHANcurtly told him that Chanalready given out 0!% to JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGAin e+change for a favorable Decision in thecase bet$een Fudot and Catltleya land8%r. Chan is a representative of Cattleya land9. Atty. De *a(erna said that :ustice Tinga abandoned the doctrine in the case *im v# :orge to accommodate %r.Chan. -e also said that the case $as prioritized for resolution and that %r. Chan had prior &no$ledgeof the outcome of the case before the decision $as promulgated.

-o$ever# %r. Chan related that he approached De *a (erna for the purpose of amicablysettling their case $ith Cattleya# and offered him to be their retainer in 3ohol. -o$ever# he deniedhaving said to De *a (erna that he had already spent so much money for the (upreme Court

ISSUE456 Atty. De *a (erna is guilty of indirect contempt.

HELDAtty. De *a (erna is guilty of indirect contempt.Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the Court by setting up an opposition to its

authority#


2/6

BONDOC V. JUDGE SIMBULAN

FACTSThere $as a case for corruption in the


3/6


4/6

HILADO V. DAVID

FACTS- %rs. -ilado filed an action against Assad to annul the sale of several house G lot bet$een

Assad and her no$ deceased husband# during the :apanese occupation- Assad,s counsel is Atty. Francisco

- %rs. -ilado,s counsels are the follo$ing@ Delgado# Dizon# Flores and /odrigo

- Atty. Dizon $rote Atty. Francisco to discontinue representing Assad because %rs. -iladoconsulted her about the case and even turned over some documents to Atty. Francisco

- Atty. Francisco even $rote a legal opinion5letter addressed to %rs. -ilado regarding thesame case# $hich states that Atty. Francisco $ill not represent %rs. -ilado in the case and

he thin&s that the action against Assad $ill not prosper- %rs. -ilado,s counsel filed a motion to DI(MA*IF Atty. Francisco

- Atty. Francisco,s version of the story@o %rs. -ilado came to see Atty. Francisco about the case# but he refused to

become her counsel because he thin&s that the action $ill not prospero Days later# Atty. Francisco,s assistant# Atty. Agrava# informed him that %rs.

-ilado left some e+pediente in the firm. Atty. Francisco instructed Atty. Agrava toreturn the e+pediente because they $ill not handle the case of %rs. -ilado

o *ater# the firm,s stenographer sho$ed Atty. Francisco a letter allegedly dictated

by Atty. Agrava $hich e+plains to %rs. -ilado $hy they refuse to ta&e the caseo Atty. Francisco allegedly signed the letter $ithout reading it

o *ater on# Assad $ent to Atty. Francisco,s office. After$ards# Atty. Francisco

accepted the retainer fee- *o$er Court -eld@ no other information $as transmitted to Atty. Francisco other than those

in plaintiff,s complaint and there $as no attorney'client relationship bet$een Atty. Francisco

and %rs. -ilado. -ence# motion to dis7ualify is denied.

ISSUE456 there $as an attorney'client relationship bet$een Atty. Francisco and %rs.

-ilado

HELDes# there $as an attorney'client relationship because the purpose of %rs. -ilado

$as to obtain Atty. Francisco,s personal service as a la$yer- /etainer and fre7uency of consultation is not needed # so long as the purpose is

to obtain professional advice or assistance and the attorney permits# then anattorney'client relationship is established

- Formality is not essential-

Bven is no secret communication $as given# as long as there is an attorney'client relationship $hich precludes accepting opposite party,s retainer in thesame litigation regardless of $hat type of information $as received

- ;nly thus can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys$hich is of paramount importance to administration of


5/6

4OSIDIO V. VITAN

FACTSPosidio engaged the services of Vitan in a Testate Proceeding of the deceased

6icolasa Arroyo to $hich she paid Php !#!!!.!! as legal fees. -o$ever# Vitan $ithdre$his appearance in the said case thus# Posidio had to engage the services of anotherla$yer. (i+ years after# Vitan contacted Posidio and told her that he has $ith some ta+declarations and other documents purportedly forming part of the estate of 6icolasa

Arroyo# but $as not included in the inventory of properties for distribution. -e convincedcomplainant to file another case to recover her share in the alleged undeclared propertiesand demanded P0!!#!!!.!! as legal fees. After several months# ho$ever# respondentfailed to institute any action. Complainant decided to forego the filing of the case andas&ed for the return of the P0!!#!!!.!!# but respondent refused despite repeateddemands.

The lo$er court ruled in favor of Posidio and ordered Vitan to return the Php0!!#!!!.!! and pay an additional Php !#!!!.!! as interest and damages. Incompliance# Vitan issued a Prudential 3an& chec& that $as dishonored later on. Despitebeing sent a notice of dishonor and the repeated demands to pay# Vitan refused to honorhis obligation.

The case $as referred to the Integrated 3ar of the Philippines for investigation#report and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his /eport findingVitan guilty of violating the la$yer,s oath and the Code of Professional /esponsibility in

defrauding his client and issuing a chec& $ithout sufficient funds to cover the same. TheI3P penalized Vitan $ith a reprimand $ith stern $arning that a similar misconduct $ill$arrant a more severe penalty.

ISSUE4hether or not Vitan should be penalizedH

HELDThe (upreme Court agrees $ith the findings of the I3P. -o$ever# they find that

the penalty of reprimand is not commensurate to the gravity of $rong committed by Vitan.In the instant case# respondent received the amount of P0!!#!!!.!! as legal

fees for filing additional claims against the estate of 6icolasa (. de uzman Arroyo.-o$ever# he failed to institute an action# thus it $as imperative that he immediately return

the amount to complainant upon demand. -aving received payment for services $hich$ere not rendered# respondent $as un


6/6

confidence in the legal profession. -e cannot

set 4 digests

Documents