Module 6

Cortez v. Cortes
A.C. No. 9119 | March 12, 2018

FACTS:
• Complainant Eugenio E. Cortez led a complaint against Atty. Hernando P. Cortes for grave
misconduct and violation of ethical standards.
• Complainant engaged Atty. Cortes for an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives
Corporation (PEC), with a purported 12% contingency fee agreement.
• After winning the case, PEC issued three checks payable to complainant, but a dispute arose
when Atty. Cortes claimed 50% as attorney's fees.
• Complainant endorsed the checks to Atty. Cortes under pressure, leading to a complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Hernando P. Cortes' actions constitute misconduct, justifying disciplinary action.

HELD:
• The IBP Commission recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Cortes, adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
• The Supreme Court found Atty. Cortes guilty of violating Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
• The Court acknowledged the validity of a contingent fee but emphasized the necessity of an
express contract.
• Despite the absence of a written agreement, Atty. Cortes was entitled to reasonable
compensation, not to exceed 10% under Article 111 of the Labor Code.
• Atty. Cortes' insistence on a 50% contingency fee was deemed grossly excessive and
unconscionable.
• The Court reduced the suspension to three months, considering Atty. Cortes' age and the
favorable case outcome.
• Atty. Cortes was ordered to return the excess amount received from complainant.

CONCLUSION:
Atty. Hernando P. Cortes was found guilty of ethical violations and suspended for three
months, with a directive to return the excessive attorney's fees.

Sanchez v. Aguilos
A.C. No. 10543 | March 16, 2016

FACTS:
• Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez engaged respondent Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos for the
annulment of her marriage, agreeing on a fee of P150,000.
• Complainant paid P90,000 initially and later realized that Atty. Aguilos intended to le a
petition for legal separation instead of annulment.
• Complainant withdrew the case, requested a refund, but Atty. Aguilos refused, claiming work
had already commenced.
• Complaint led with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging misconduct.
fi
fi
fi
 ISSUES:
(a) Whether Atty. Aguilos is administratively liable for misconduct.
(b) Whether Atty. Aguilos should return the attorney's fees paid.

HELD:
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Aguilos liable for misconduct, having
misrepresented his competence in handling the case.
• The IBP Board of Governors a rmed but modi ed the penalty, imposing a six-month
suspension and ordering a P30,000 refund.
• The Supreme Court adopted the ndings but further ned Atty. Aguilos P10,000 for
misrepresentation and reprimanded him for o ensive language.
• Atty. Aguilos was ordered to return the entire P70,000 received from the client, as he failed to
perform the agreed legal services competently.
• The Court emphasized that an attorney's fee must be based on quantum meruit, and in this
case, Atty. Aguilos was not entitled to any compensation.

CONCLUSION:
Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos was found guilty of misconduct, misrepresentation, and incompetence.
He was ned P10,000 and reprimanded. The Court ordered the return of the entire P70,000
attorney's fees to the client, emphasizing the need for lawyers to uphold professional
standards and competence.

Rosario v. De Guzman
G.R. No. 191247 | July 10, 2013
FACTS:
1. Chong led a petition under Rule 45 to set aside RTC orders denying petitioner Atty.
Francisco L. Rosario Jr.'s Motion to Determine Attorney’s Fees in Civil Case No. 89-50138.
2. Spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman hired Rosario for a land dispute.
3. Spouses won the case, but died during the proceedings.
4. Respondents, their children, were substituted in.
5. Rosario sought 25% of the land's market value based on a verbal agreement.
6. RTC denied Rosario's motion, citing its untimeliness post- nal judgment.

ISSUES:
1. Did the RTC erred in denying the Motion based on loss of jurisdiction?
2. Did the RTC misinterpret the e ect of granting attorney’s fees on the nal judgment?
3. Did the RTC erred in declaring nality bars ling for attorney’s fees?

HELD:
1. Wrong remedy; should le a certiorari under Rule 65. Exception due to broader interest of
justice.
2. Attorney's fees sought by Rosario are for professional services, not indemnity. No double
award as it doesn't alter the nal judgment.
3. Rosario led within the six-year prescription period, and there's no evidence Spouses
refused his services.

CONCLUSION:
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Petition granted. Attorney’s fees awarded to Rosario based on quantum meruit, at 15% of the
land's market value.

Spouses Lopez v. Limos

A.C. 7618 | February 2, 2016
FACTS:
Complainants hired Atty. Sinamar E. Limos for an adoption case, paying P75,000.00. Despite
payment, she failed to le the case during the complainants' stay in the Philippines, causing
them to withdraw their documents and hire another lawyer. Complainants demanded a refund,
but Limos refused, citing a "no return of acceptance fees" policy.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Limos should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

HELD:
Atty. Limos is found guilty of violating multiple CPR provisions, including neglecting the legal
matter, failing to return legal fees, and engaging in deceitful conduct. She is suspended from
practicing law for three years and ordered to return P75,000.00 with legal interest to the
complainants within 90 days. Failure to comply may result in a more severe penalty. The
decision is to be circulated to relevant legal authorities.

Huang v. Zambrano
A.C. No. 12460 | March 26, 2019
FACTS:
• Diwei "Bryan" Huang led a Disbarment Case against Atty. Jude Francis V. Zambrano,
accusing him of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
• Huang engaged Zambrano's legal services in October 2014 for a money claim, leading to the
ling of a criminal case.
• A settlement of PhP250,000.00 was agreed upon, but Zambrano failed to remit the amount to
Huang despite repeated demands.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Zambrano's actions, including his failure to remit the settlement money to
Huang, constitute a violation of Canon 16 of the CPR.

HELD:
• The Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension, but the IBP Board of
Governors increased it to disbarment, a decision a rmed by the court.
• Atty. Zambrano is found guilty of violating Rules 1.01, 16.01, and 16.03 of the CPR.
• The court orders Zambrano's disbarment and directs him to immediately remit
PhP250,000.00 plus interest to Huang within ten days. Copies of the decision are to be
circulated to relevant legal entities.

Minas v. Doctor
fi
fi
fi
ffi
 A.C. No. 12660 | January 28, 2020
FACTS:
• Disbarment complaint led by Joann G. Minas against Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr.
• Alleged violations of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Complainant's shing vessel apprehended; Atty. Doctor hired to handle cases.
• Complainant paid acceptance fee of P200,000.00; additional amounts given for BID and
BFAR cases.
• Atty. Doctor failed to post replevin bond; prosecution presented evidence ex-parte.
• Complainant demanded return of P800,000.00; Atty. Doctor partially returned US$45,400.00.
• Dispute led to termination of Atty. Doctor's services and ling of disbarment complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Doctor should be held administratively liable for failure to account for money
received and serve his client with competence and diligence.

HELD:
• Atty. Doctor found guilty of violating Canons 16 and 18.
• Suspended from practicing law for two years with a stern warning.
• Ordered to return P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 to complainant within 90 days, with legal
interest.
• Failure to comply may lead to a more severe penalty.
• Resolution to be circulated to relevant legal entities for information and guidance.

In re Maquera
B.M. No. 793 | July 30, 2004
FACTS:
Atty. Leon G. Maquera was suspended from practicing law in Guam for two years due to
misconduct. The suspension arose from Maquera acquiring his client's property as payment,
selling it, and obtaining an unreasonably high fee. The Superior Court of Guam found him liable
for violating ethical rules.

ISSUE:
Whether Maquera, a member of the Philippine Bar suspended in a foreign jurisdiction, can be
meted the same sanction in the Philippines for the same infraction.

HELD:
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a
Philippine Bar member in a foreign jurisdiction is grounds for the same in the Philippines if the
foreign court's action involves deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct,
or a violation of the lawyer's oath. Maquera's acts in Guam violate Philippine law and ethical
standards, justifying his suspension from practicing law in the Philippines. He is suspended for
one year or until he pays his overdue IBP membership dues. Maquera is directed to show
cause within 15 days or face suspension or disbarment.

Lopez v. Cristobal
fi
fi
fi
 A.C. 12146 | October 10, 2018
FACTS:
Complainant hired Atty. Cristobal for a case, paying a P35,000 acceptance fee. Atty. Cristobal
allegedly failed to le a position paper, misrepresented actions, didn't attend hearings, and
refused communication. Complainant demanded withdrawal and fee return.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Cristobal violated Canons 18 and 22, Rules 18.03, 18.04, and 22.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Atty. Cristobal's failure to serve diligently and neglecting the case warrants a six-month
suspension. She didn't follow proper withdrawal procedures. She must return the remaining
P25,000 of the acceptance fee within 90 days.

Pabalan v. Atty. Cristobal

A.C. No. 12098 | March 20, 2019
FACTS:
Marilyn Pabalan led a disbarment complaint against Atty. Eliseo Magno Salva, alleging
deception, illegal partnership, womanizing, fake certi cate of non-marriage, and nancial
improprieties.

ISSUE:
Whether the disbarment complaint against Atty. Salva should be dismissed.

HELD:
Yes, the complaint is dismissed. The Court found that the IBP had already ruled on similar
allegations in a previous case (CBD Case No. 09-2382), where Atty. Salva was suspended for
violating Rule 9.02. The Court emphasized that the IBP should have dismissed the complaint,
citing the earlier case as precedent.

Panelco v. Atty. Montemayor

A.C. No. 5739 | September 12, 2007
FACTS:
Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) led an administrative complaint against Atty.
Juan Ayar Montemayor, alleging negligence that caused nancial losses amounting to sixteen
million pesos.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Montemayor committed gross negligence in handling PANELCO I's cases.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Montemayor is disbarred. The Court found him guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility due to his gross negligence in handling PANELCO I's cases,
resulting in serious nancial losses. Despite numerous chances to explain, he failed to present
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 a defense, demonstrating an utter lack of regard for the charges and disrespect for the Court.
Disbarment is warranted as his actions make him un t to remain in the legal profession. The
decision is immediately executory.

Rollon v. Naraval
A.C. No. 6424 | March 4, 2005
FACTS:
Consorcia Rollon led a complaint against Atty. Camilo Naraval for neglect of duty. She paid
Naraval Php 8,000 for ling and service fees related to her case. However, despite repeated
follow-ups, Naraval did not provide legal services, failed to return the money, and did not
inform Rollon about the nality of the judgment against her.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Naraval violated professional ethics by neglecting his duty, failing to return the
money, and not disclosing the nal judgment status to his client.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Naraval is guilty of violating professional ethics. The Canons of Professional
Responsibility mandate lawyers to serve their clients with utmost dedication, competence, and
diligence. Naraval's inaction, refusal to return the money, and failure to disclose the nal
judgment demonstrate a lack of integrity, violating Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18. He is suspended
from practicing law for two years and ordered to restitute the Php 8,000 plus interest to the
complainant within 30 days. The decision is e ective upon his receipt of this Decision.

Aguilar-Dyquiangco v. Arellano
A.C. No. 10541 | July 12, 2016
FACTS:
• Complainant engaged Respondent's services in 2006 to le a case against Delia Antigua,
advancing ₱10,000 for ling fees and ₱2,000 as part of attorney's fees out of the agreed
₱20,000.
• Three years later, Complainant discovered that Respondent failed to le the case against
Antigua, leading to Complainant terminating the services and demanding the return of the
money.
• During their lawyer-client relationship, Respondent frequently borrowed money from
Complainant and her husband, totaling ₱360,818.20, covered by ten checks, all dishonored.
• Respondent purchased ₱282,110 worth of magnetic bracelets from Complainant's business
in 2008, using part of a ₱360,000 loan from Complainant, and failed to pay for the bracelets.
• Respondent acquired other products worth ₱15,770 from Complainant but did not pay.
• Respondent opened a joint account with Complainant, used the funds for personal
expenses, and issued checks that bounced.
• Respondent led baseless libel complaints against Complainant, leading to their dismissal for
lack of probable cause.

ISSUES:
1. Did Respondent violate Canon 18 by failing to le the collection case and neglecting the
legal matter entrusted to her?
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
2. Did Respondent violate Canon 16 by obtaining several loans from Complainant and failing
to keep client funds separate?
3. Did Respondent violate Lawyer's Oath by ling baseless libel complaints against
Complainant?

HELD:
1. Yes, Respondent violated Canon 18 by failing to le the collection case and neglecting her
duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.
2. Yes, Respondent violated Canon 16 by obtaining loans from Complainant during their
lawyer-client relationship and failing to keep client funds separate.
3. Yes, Respondent violated Lawyer's Oath by ling baseless libel complaints against
Complainant.

fi
fi
fi