Quiambao v. Atty. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708, 25 August 2005
Suspension of 1 year from practice of law due to representing conflicting interests, namely the complainant in representing her in an
ejectment case and inducing her to establish QMRSI, as legal counsel of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc., and as President of San
Esteban Security Services, Inc.
Violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR, “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.”
FACTS:
Complainant Felicitas S. Quiambao filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Nestor
A. Bamba for representing conflicting interests and for committing other acts of disloyalty and double dealing.
As to representing conflicting interests, complainant averred that Atty. Bamba represented her in an ejectment case
against spouses Torroba and after six months of her resignation from Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc., where she was
the President who procured the legal services of Atty. Bamba, the respondent acting on behalf of the corporation filed
a complaint for replevin against her.
As to the other acts of disloyalty and double-dealing, complainant averred that Atty. Bamba was the one who induce
her to establish another security agency, QMRSI, in which he became its silent partner, and the incorporator and
president of SESSI while serving as a legal counsel of AIB. These three companies are all engaged to security
services.
Atty. Bamba, while admitting that he represented complainant on an ejectment case, denies that he was the personal
lawyer of the complainant and his representation on behalf of her in an ejectment case is by virtue of his legal services
to AIB. He also posited that even if the complainant confided him privileged information, the same is of no use since
the ejectment case and replevin case are both unrelated cases.
With regard to complainant’s claim that he was the silent partner of the complainant’s security agency, QMRSI, Atty.
Bamba vehemently denied that the shares held by his former law partner was his by presenting a statement of
apprehension of conflicting interests which states his rejection of the complainant’s offer to become an incorporator
of QMRSI. Being an incorporator and president of SESSI and at the same time as a legal counsel of AIB, he contended
that there are no conflicting interests since he served both companies in different capacities.
The Investigating Commissioner of IBP found Atty. Bamba guilty of representing conflicting interests on two instances:
1) Atty. Bamba was still the counsel on record of the complainant in an ejectment case while he filed an action for
replevin against her on behalf of AIB; and 2) Atty. Bamba was still the legal counsel of AIB when he induced
complainant to establish QMRSI and became the incorporator and president of SESSI.
A penalty of suspension of 1 year from practice of law was recommended by the Investigating Commissioner.
However, this recommendation was reduced to a reprimand with a stern warning by the Board of Governors of IBP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bamba was guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests?
RULING:
Yes. The recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of a penalty of suspension of 1 year from the practice
of law was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would
not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there
would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the
two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would lose
the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
In this case, it is undisputed that at the time the respondent filed the replevin case on behalf of AIB he was still the
counsel of record of the complainant in the pending ejectment case. We do not sustain respondent’s theory that since
the ejectment case and the replevin case are unrelated cases fraught with different issues, parties, and subject
matters, the prohibition is inapplicable. His representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated,
obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing. While the respondent may
assert that the complainant expressly consented to his continued representation in the ejectment case, the respondent
failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to both his clients and he failed to present any written consent of the
complainant and AIB as required under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
While the complainant lacks personality to question the alleged conflict of interests on the part of the respondent in
serving both security agencies, we cannot just turn a blind eye to respondent’s act. It must be noted that the
proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests
arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be. It applies even if
the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional
capacity. In the process of determining whether there is a conflict of interest, an important criterion is
probability, not certainty, of conflict.
Cunanan v. Atty. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5315, 23 August 2000
Suspension of 1 year from the practice of law due to non-accounting of funds by Atty. Rimorin whom the funds were deposited in trust
into in behalf of complainant Cunanan
Violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of CPR, “A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.”
FACTS:
Complainant Cunanan filed an administrative case with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for disbarment against
Atty. Rex C. Rimorin for swindling and failure of accounting of the Php. 200,000.00 deposited by the ABS-CBN to him
in trust for the complainant.
In exchange for an inclusive interview with Cunanan who wants to settle his overstaying alien status in the Philippines
with the BID so that he can attend the burial of his son in US, ABS-CBN offered to pay him Php. 200,000.00 as
goodwill money and assistance for his planned trip to US. Out of this money, complainant verbally agreed to pay
40,000 to Atty. Rimorin in exchange for the latter’s professional services in settling his dispute from the BID. However,
ABS-CBN, represented by Noli De Castro, stated in his Affidavit that he deposited the Php. 200,000.00 to Atty.
Rimorin’s account in two payments but intended the funds for the complainant.
Cunanan testified that the Php. 200,000 be divided into Php. 120,000 as payment for the penalties in BID and the
remaining Php. 40,000 as payment for plane tickets and travelling expenses. However, he only received 30,000 from
Atty. Rimorin.
Atty. Rimorin, in his Counter-Affidavit, stated that as per their agreement with the complainant, the Php. 200,000 from
the ABS-CBN, should be split between the two of them, while admitting the fact that indeed the funds were received
by and deposited to him. And also, in his Answer, Atty. Rimorin prayed for the dismissal of the administrative case
since the Estafa case also filed by Cunanan against him involving the same matters is also dismissed.
In the nine scheduled hearings before the Bar Discipline of IBP, Atty. Rex C. Rimorin never appeared. IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline find that there is a need for an appropriate accounting of the P200,000.00 which Atty. Rimorin
received in trust for his client, herein complainant, from the ABS-CBN represented by Noli de Castro, in accordance
with Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Rimorin should render accounting of funds as demanded by Cunanan?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court agrees with the said finding of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that there is a need
for an appropriate accounting, suspended Atty. Rimorin from the practice of law for 1 year, and ordered an accounting
of the remaining Php. 170,000 within 20 days after this Decision.
The highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client require that respondent lawyer should
promptly account for the said funds which he received and held for the benefit of his client, the herein
complainant. That is because those funds properly belong to the client. The client has the right to know how
the funds were applied, used or disbursed by his counsel. A lawyer should always keep in mind the welfare
and interest of his client.
From the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint on January 9, 1998 and up to the present,
complainant's demand for an accounting has not been satisfied by respondent. This case has been set for hearing for
over a year but respondent has not given any indication that he would render the accounting of funds as demanded
by the complainant. The Answer of the respondent does not show how the P200,000.00 which was delivered to
respondent, in trust for the complainant, by Noli de Castro representing ABS-CBN, was used. Complainant claims
that except for the P30,000.00 cash given to him, respondent "fraudulently embezzled the funds." However, there is
nothing in the record to show how the balance of P170,000.00 was applied or used, if it was used at all, by the
respondent for the benefit of the complainant.
It is established that those funds amounting to a total of P200,000.00 were received by respondent for the benefit of
and in trust for the complainant, as corroborated by Noli de Castro of ABS-CBN in his Affidavit. Complainant is entitled
to know how the funds were used and applied. In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show how the funds were
used and applied by respondent. It is clear, therefore, that respondent has fallen short of his duty as a lawyer under
Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, respondent should be penalized
accordingly.
Licuanan v. Atty. Melo, A.C. No. 2361, 9 February 1989
Disbarment due to unreasonable delay of Atty. Melo to turn-over the funds collected by him from the judgment ordered on behalf of the
Licuanan who is forced to file a groundless suit which resulted to the damages of another person
Violation of Canons of Profession Ethics, “The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses
or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client. Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust property
coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstance be
commingled with his own or be used by him.”
FACTS:
Leonila J. Licuanan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Manuel L. Melo for failure to remit to her the
collected rental payments over a 12-month period and report to her the receipts therefor.
The collection of rental payments stems from the ejectment case against Aida Pineda filed by Licuanan who was
represented by Atty. Melo. Pineda was ordered to pay rental payments to Licuanan. Acting as counsel, the rental
payments were received by Atty. Melo but failed to remit the same much less report the receipts thereof to Licuanan.
Not knowing that Atty. Melo had been receiving the rental payments of Pineda, Licuanan instituted an administrative
case against Pineda accusing her of moral turpitude arising from her alleged failure to pay the rent of her apartment
as ordered by the City Court of Manila in the ejectment case. This led Pineda to bring an action against Licuanan for
damages for she allegedly suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation and social humiliation since she had been
paying her obligation religiously to the lawyer of Licuanan.
Licuanan, through another counsel, wrote a letter to Atty. Melo advising him to surrender the money to complainant
that he accounted for it. In response, Atty. Melo turned over the funds to Licuanan and explained that he kept this
matter from the Licuanan for the purpose of surprising her with his success in collecting the rentals.
The Solicitor General, in his recommendation to the case at bar, find that Atty. Melo, by his deceitful conduct, placed
his client in jeopardy by becoming a defendant in a damage suit; thus, instead of being a help to his client, he became
the cause of her misery. The Solicitor General recommended a penalty of suspension of not less than 1 year and a
strong admonishment in this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was unreasonable delay on the part of Atty. Melo in accounting for the funds collected by him
for Licuanan, for which unprofessional conduct respondent should be disciplined?
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Solicitor General but modified the penalty to disbarment.
The actuations of respondent in retaining for his personal benefit over a one-year period, the amount of P5,220.00
received by him on behalf of his client, the complainant herein, depriving her of its use, and withholding information
on the same despite inquiries made by her, is glaringly a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance,
and an evident transgression of the Canons of Professional Ethics particularly, “The lawyer should refrain from any
action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his
client. Money of the client or collected for the client of other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer
should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own
or be used by him.”
Indeed, by his professional misconduct, respondent has breached the trust reposed in him by his client. He
has shown himself unfit for the confidence and trust which should characterize an attorney-client relationship
and the practice of law. By reason thereof complainant was compelled to file a groundless suit against her
tenant for non-payment of rentals thereby exposing her to jeopardy by becoming a defendant in a damage
suit filed by said tenant against her. By force of circumstances, complainant was further compelled to engage
the services of another counsel in order to recover the amount rightfully due her but which respondent had
unjustifiably withheld from her.
Respondent's unprofessional actuations considered, we are constrained to find him guilty of deceit, malpractice and
gross misconduct in office. He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral character. He has violated his oath not
to delay any man for money or malice, besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proven himself
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the Court. He deserves the severest punishment.
Caballero v. Atty. Pilapil, A.C. No. 7075, 21 January 2020
Suspension of 2 years from practice of law due to Atty. Pilapil’s failure to return of the sum paid by Caballero for preparation of Deed of
Sale and payment of capital gains taxes and real property taxes after non-performance of these obligations
Violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03 of the CPR, “A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
x x x”
FACTS:
Joselito C. Caballero wrote a letter-complaint against Atty. Arlene G. Pilapil for non-performance of the latter’s
obligation in paying the real property taxes and capital gains taxes and for failure to return the documents to him as a
result of the preparation of a notarized Deed of Sale.
Complainant engaged the services of Atty. Pilapil for the preparation of a Deed of Sale for the purchase of a lot
situated in Consolacion, Cebu. According to the complainant, Atty. Pilapil did indeed prepare the said document but
needed to amend certain information. Atty. Pilapil, then asked for a consideration amounting to a total of Php. 53,500
from the complainant for payment of CGT, RPT, and her legal fees for which the complainant paid.
While waiting for the processing of the first transaction, complainant again asked for the services of Atty. Pilapil for
the purchase of another lot situated in Liloan, Cebu. This time, according to the complainant, Atty. Pilapil asked for
the total sum of Php. 69,000 inclusive of payment of CGT to BIR and her legal fees for which the complainant also
paid to her.
However, Atty. Pilapil had not performed any obligation: to pay the related taxes for the transfer of titles. She also
failed to return the documents of the complainant. This prompted the complainant to seek the help of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Consolacion, Cebu but Atty, Pilapil failed to attend. This further led complainant to write a lettercomplaint to IBP Cebu Chapter.
Atty. Pilapil, in her reply to the letter-complaint, claimed that when the complainant’s sister, Rowena, sought her
services in relation to the transfer of titles, she offered only that she would find a fixer and prepare the documents. As
to the first transaction, Atty. Pilapil received 45,000 from Rowena in which 40,000 was for the fixer and 5,000 was for
her documentation. However, the fixer disappeared and left the documents to a common friend. As to the second
transaction, Atty. Pilapil claimed that she contacted another fixer whom was paid by Rowena. However, despite
several demands, the fixer had not returned her the documents.
Atty. Pilapil failed to appear before the IBP Cebu Chapter which led the complainant to bring his complaint before the
Office of the Court Administrator. The Court issued a Resolution to require Atty. Pilapil to file her Comment on the
verified complaint. She likewise failed to file her Comment despite several orders from the Court and penalties.
Because of this, the Supreme Court had to resolve the case without referring the same to IBP for recommendations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pilapil should be held administratively liable for her failure to return the money given to her by
complainant for the payment of capital gains tax and the documents she took from him?
RULING:
Yes. Atty. Pilapil was suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and ordered to return the 53,000 received by the
complainant with legal interest of 6% per annum and to return the documents she took from the complainant.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great
fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. A lawyer's failure to return
upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a
gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.
In this case, complainant had sufficiently proved that respondent received from him the total amount of
P53,500.00 for the payment of capital gains tax and for the services rendered for the transfer of his and his siblings'
property from the Spouses Ardente; and that she also took the original copy of TCT No. 64507 covering the said
property as well as the original copy of the sketch plan to facilitate the transfer of title. In fact, respondent, in her
letter reply to the IBP Cebu Chapter, to which the complainant first referred his complaint before filing the same with
us, did not deny receiving the said amount of P53,500.00 and the documents from complainant, but put up the
defense that they were all given to a fixer who never returned the money and documents to her despite several
demands.
The money which was given to respondent for the purpose of the payment of the capital gains tax, which
was not used for that purpose, should have been immediately returned by respondent upon complainant's
demand. However, respondent never did. Her failure to pay the capital gains tax and real estate tax for the
transfer of the title and to return the documents she took from complainant violates the trust and
confidence reposed on her by the complainant. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
We could not make the same findings regarding complainant's claim that he gave respondent the sum of
P69,000.00 to facilitate the payment of the capital gains tax of the other property he bought from the Spouses Dela
Cuesta, as there was no evidence showing such receipt.