Title: Celina F. Andrad v. Atty. Rodrigo Cera, July 22, 2015, A.C. No.

10187

Facts: Sometime 2009, Celina F. Andrada (Andrada) engaged the services of Atty.
Rodrigo Cera (Cera) to represent her in an annulment of marriage case. Copies of the
birth certificates of the children of Andrada, as issued by the National Statistics Office
(NSO), were needed for the filing of the case. Said certificates were however not filed
with NSO since Andrada’s husband failed to completely accomplish the same. Hence,
Andrada gave Cera P3,000.00 to process with the NSO the registration and issuance
of the certificates. An additional P10,000.00 was given to Cera for the conduct of the
psychological examination on Cera and her children relative to the case. Upon follow
up in 2010, Andrada was asked by the NSO to produce the receipts. She then
requested the same from Cera but Cera failed to produce the same. Andrada also
learned from the NSO that no payment was made. On May 29, 2011, Andrada
demanded for the surrender of the receipt and the return of the P10,000.00. Despite
receipt of the demand on May 30, 2011, Cera did not heed the demand.

On June 7, 2011, Andrada filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). IBP Investigating
Commissioner found Cera guilty of violating Canons 1 and 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) and recommended the imposition of three (3) years
suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted his
findings but modified the recommended penalty to one (1) year.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Cera violated Canon 1 of the CPR.

2. Whether or not Cera violated Canon 16 of the CPR

Held:

1. Yes, Cera violated Canon 1. He did not exert effort on his client’s case, lied to her
and reneged on his obligations. His actions show negligence and lack of zeal. He
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 due to his unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct. In relation thereto, he also violated Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 when he
neglected the legal matter entrusted to him.
2. Yes, he violated Canon 16. He misappropriated the funds entrusted to him when he
unlawfully withheld the same and when he failed to use the same for the intended
purposes, thus violating Canon 16 which holds a lawyer in trust of all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession. Rule 16.03 of the same
canon was also violated when he failed to deliver the funds and property of Andrada
when due and upon demand.

Disposition: Wherefore, respondent Atty. Rodrigo Cera is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Title: Foronda vs. Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr.: A Case of Professional Misconduct,
A.C. No. 9976 Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2539

Facts: Almira C. Foronda, an overseas Filipino worker, sought the legal assistance of
Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. for the nullification of her marriage in May 2008. Upon his
referral, Foronda engaged his services for a total fee of P195,000.00, payable in three
installments, which she completed by June 10, 2008. Despite assurances, Alvarez
delayed filing the petition until July 16, 2009, citing various reasons for the
postponement. Separately, Alvarez enticed Foronda to invest P200,000.00 in a
lending business, promising 5% monthly interest and issuing post-dated checks as
guarantee. These checks, except for the first two, were eventually dishonored due to
being drawn against a closed account. Alvarez attempted to rectify this by issuing
replacement checks, which were also dishonored. Foronda’s demands for settlement
led to partial payments and eventually, a criminal complaint for violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22, which was later dismissed following an affidavit of desistance
after Alvarez settled an amount with Foronda. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) received Foronda’s complaint, leading to
mandatory conferences and submissions of position papers by both parties. The IBP-
CBD investigation acknowledged Alvarez’s misconduct, recommending a suspension
from legal practice.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the annulment petition, violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
2. Dishonesty about the filing status of the petition, breach of Canon 15 and Rule
18.04.
3. Unlawful borrowing and inducement in a lending business with a client, conflicting
with Rule 16.04. 4. Issuance of dishonored checks, signifying conduct unbecoming of
a lawyer as per Rule 1.01.

Held:
The Supreme Court underscored the solemn responsibility of lawyers to uphold legal
integrity, emphasizing their role as guardians of law and justice. It found Alvarez
guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including
deceit, neglect, dishonest borrowing, and issuance of worthless checks. These actions
tarnished the trust placed in him by his client and the legal profession.

Given the gravity of Alvarez’s misconduct, juxtaposed with his eventual compliance
through settlement and participation in proceedings, the Court deemed a suspension,
rather than disbarment, as an adequate disciplinary measure. Consequently, Alvarez
was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning against
repeating such offenses.

Ratio: The case reiterates the principle that lawyers are bound by a code of
professional ethics demanding honesty, diligence, and loyalty in their dealings,
particularly with clients. It further elaborates on the disciplinary scope of the Supreme
Court in cases of professional misconduct, emphasizing restitution and rehabilitation
over punitive disbarment when the situation permits.
Title: Hernandez vs Go AC 1526

Facts: Complainant, Nazaria Hernandez (deceased; substituted by her son, Luciano

Hernandez, Jr.), engaged in the services of the respondent, Atty. Jose C. Go. She
entrusted the respondent to sell her lots believing that the proceeds would be used to
pay her deceased husband’s numerous creditors. Respondent instilled in the
complainant the feeling of fear and helplessness. He abused the complainant’s trust by
convincing her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary or valuable
consideration. Complainant came to know that he did not sell her lots as agreed.
Instead, he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles registered in
his name, depriving her of her real properties worth millions. If he had sold the lots to
other buyers, the complainant could have earned more. The records also show that she
did not receive any payment from the respondent. A letter of disbarment was filed by
the complainant against the respondent. Respondent denied the allegations and that he
averred that he sold the lots in good faith to various buyers, including himself, for
valuable consideration. Moreover, he ascertained that he extended financial assistance
to complainant and even invited her to live with his family. He prayed that the
complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed a violation of Canon 16 and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility

Held:
Yes. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as the source of ethical
rules for lawyers, provides: “a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession”. The respondent’s act of acquiring for
himself the complainant’s lots entrusted to him are acts constituting gross misconduct,
a grievous wrong, a dereliction in duty, implies a wrongful intent and not merely an
error in judgment. Such conduct degrades not only himself but the name of his legal
profession. Furthermore, Canon 17 states that “a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
Complainant placed a high degree of trust to him however he abused her trust and
confidence when he did not sell the properties to others but to himself and spent his
own money to pay for the obligations.

Ruling: The case was referred to the IBP for investigation. It was found out from the
records that it was the respondent who notarized the documents involving the said
properties repurchased by the complainant from her creditors which ended up in the
respondent’s name. Instead of selling to buyers at a higher price, he paid them out of
his own funds; then later on admitted that he was one of the purchasers of the
complainant’s properties and no evidence was submitted concerning the value of the
said sale of properties. The respondent is to be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six (6) months. However, it was modified in the sense that the
recommended penalty was increased from six (6) months to three (3) years.

Disposition: The penalty recommended by the IBP is too light considering the
depravity of the offense. Respondent is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
disbarred from the practice of law. His name is ordered stricken from the roll of
attorneys.
Ratio: The respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal
profession. He has fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful and
grossly immoral acts. Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best
effort and ability to protect the interests of his clients. Good moral character is not
only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential in remaining in the legal profession. It is a privilege to be
a member of the legal profession. But when an attorney is no longer worthy of trust of
the public, the Court may withdraw such privilege. He has blemished not only his
integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.
Title: Erlinda R. Tarog vs. Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort A.C. No. 8253(Formerly CBD
Case No. 03-1067)

Facts: In 1992, Arnulfo and Erlinda Tarog sought legal advice regarding their bank-
foreclosed property from Atty. Jaime L. Miralles, who suggested they hire a local
Bicol attorney. The Tarogs then engaged Romulo L. Ricafort, a prominent lawyer and
the dean at Aquinas University. The Tarogs had to deposit a sum in court to contest
the property’s foreclosure and sale. Ricafort requested P7,000 for filing fees and
P65,000 to counter the buyer’s deposit. Arnulfo Tarog endorsed a check for P65,000,
under Ricafort’s persuasion, with the belief that Ricafort would deposit it in court.
However, Ricafort placed the funds in his personal account and failed to return them
despite multiple inquiries and promises. Furthermore, the Tarogs provided Ricafort
with an additional P15,000 for drafting a memorandum required by the Sorsogon
RTC, which was not filed. Following Arnulfo Tarog’s death, Erlinda took over and
pursued a demand for the return of funds from Ricafort on December 3, 2002, which
went unanswered. Ricafort claimed the amounts were part of an agreed “package
deal” for his legal fees. The matter was investigated by Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), who found the complainant’s testimonies
credible. He recommended disbarment. Despite Ricafort’s defense of a package deal
and claims against Erlinda Tarog and Vidal Miralles’s testimonies, the IBP initially
resolved to disbar Ricafort. However, upon reconsideration, they modified the penalty
to indefinite suspension. Ricafort contested this, arguing procedural violations and
asserting no retainer agreement was required.

Issues:
1. Whether the amount of P65,000 was meant for deposit in court as part of a legal
strategy, or as payment for Ricafort’s legal services under a “package deal.”
2. Whether Atty. Ricafort’s actions constituted grave misconduct and a breach of his
fiduciary duties as an attorney

Held:
The Philippine Supreme Court affirmed Commissioner Reyes’ findings, crediting the
Tarogs’ account over Ricafort’s claims. The court found Ricafort culpable for
misappropriating client funds intended for litigation purposes. His continuous denial
and failure to account or produce evidence of a retainer agreement led to the
conclusion that his actions were inconsistent with his fiduciary responsibilities as an
attorney. The Court overruled the IBP’s modified penalty of indefinite suspension and
reinstated disbarment, citing Ricafort’s prior offenses and the severity of his current
misconduct, specifically his failure to return funds demanded, thus underscoring his
breach of professional trust.

Ratio: The case reiterated the doctrine that a lawyer must account promptly and fully
for all funds received from a client, maintaining a fiduciary duty to manage such
funds solely for their intended purpose. (Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Canon 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility).
Title: Cordon vs Balicanta AC No. 2797

Facts: : Complainant Rosaura Cordon filed an administrative complaint for

disbarment, docketed as Administrative Case No. 2797 against Atty. Jesus Balicanta.
Complainant and her daughter Rosemarie inherited 21 parcels of land located in
Zamboanga City. Respondent Balicanta helped her with the estate of her late husband,
Felixberto Jaldon. Respondent enticed the complainant and daughter to use the
property as a commercial complex and to organize a corporation to develop it .
However, using a spurious board resolution of the corporation as Respondent’s
capacity as Chairman of the Board, President, General Manager and Treasurer,
contracted a loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines. Four years from time of
debt, respondent was unable to pay even a single installment and worse, he sold the
mortgage properties through the corporations right to redeem it to a certain Jammang
through a fake board resolution.

Issue:
Whether or not Balicanta should be disbarred

Held: Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor
on the legal profession. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the
corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to him
in trust by complainant and her daughter.

Ratio: The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his
duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an
honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not
only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to
the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one’s good
standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than
just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the
unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong.
This must be so because “vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient
of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client’s property, reputation, his
life, his all. Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer “to hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” He is
bound “to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.” The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature.
Thus, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them
on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
Title: Celina F. Andrada v. Atty. Rodrigo Cera, A.C. No. 10187

Facts: The complainant hired the respondent to represent her in an annulment of

marriage case pending before the RTC. In order to file the annulment case, the
complainant needed to submit National Statistics Office (NSO) copies of her
children’s birth certificates – documents which could not be obtained from the NSO
because of her husband’s failure to completely accomplish the certificates resulting in
the nonregistration of the births of their two children. The complainant gave the
respondent money to process the registration and issuance of her children’s birth
certificates with the NSO. The complainant also gave the respondent, through a
friend, the amount of ₱10,000.00 as advance payment for the hiring of a psychologist
and/or the conduct of psychologist tests for herself and her children. The complainant
repeatedly asked the respondent for the NSO receipt, but the latter would always give
an excuse not to turn the receipt over to her. This prompted the complainant to request
confirmation of payment from the NSO. She found out that the respondent never paid
nor filed applications for birth certificates. The complainant wrote a demand letter to
the respondent for the surrender of the NSO receipt and the return of the ₱10,000.00.
After the respondent refused to heed the complainant’s demands, the complainant
filed the present administrative complaint against him before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-CBD). The respondent returned to
the complainant the amount of seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty pesos
(₱17,280.00), pursuant to a compromise agreement that the parties entered into in
exchange for the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa filed by the complainant
against the respondent. As part of the settlement, the respondent agreed to secure the
birth certificates of the complainant’s children, an obligation which the respondent
has not yet fulfilled up to the present. IBP found that the respondent had engaged in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct against his client’s interest in
violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, and found the respondent guilty of misappropriating
the funds entrusted to him by his client and of failing to account for and to return his
client’s money upon demand, in violation of Canon 16 of the CPR.

Issue:
Whether respondent’s negligence violates his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility and that his restitution of the complainants money cannot serve to
mitigate his administrative?

Held: : Yes, the court sustain the IBP Board of Governors’ findings of administrative
liability, as well as its recommended penalty of one (1) year suspension from the
practice of law.

Ratio: These actions show the respondent’s negligence and lack of zeal in handling
the complainant’s case, for which he should be made administratively liable. He
violated not only Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, but also Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 of the same Code, which provides that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.” Moreover, the respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer when he
unlawfully withheld the complainant’s money. These omissions confirm the
presumption that the respondent misappropriated the funds of his client, in violation
of Canon 16 of the CPR that holds a lawyer in trust of all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession. The respondent, likewise, violated Rule
16.039 of Canon 16 (which provides that “a lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand”) when he failed to return the
complainant’s money upon demand. We note that it was only after a year that the
respondent, under threat of a criminal case filed against him, returned the
complainant’s money. The respondent’s restitution cannot serve to mitigate his
administrative liability as he returned the complainant’s money not voluntarily but for
fear of possible criminal liability.
Title: Belleza v Macasa A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009

Facts: Complainant went to see respondent to avail of respondent’s legal services in

connection with the case of her son who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City
earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed
to handle the case for ₱30,000. The following day, complainant made a partial
payment to respondent thru their mutual friend. She gave him an additional ₱10,000
and ₱5,000 as payment for the balance. Both payments were also made thru Chua.
Respondent received ₱18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to
secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. When complainant went to
the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the
court. Complainant demanded the return of the ₱18,000 from respondent on several
occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case
of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Thereafter, complainant filed a verified
complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Negros Occidental chapter of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. IBP Negros Occidental chapter transmitted the
complaint to the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline. The CBD required respondent
to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent
motion for extension of time to file an answer for three times but failed to send an
answer. In its report and recommendation the CBD ruled that respondent failed to
rebut the charges against him. He never answered the complaint despite several
chances to do so. The CBD found respondent guilty of violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Issue:
Whether the respondent violated his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
and must be barred to practice law.

Held: Yes, the court affirmed the CBD’s finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP
Board of Governors but we modify the IBP’s recommendation as to the liability of
respondent.The court DISBARRED him from the practice of law.

Ratio: The Respondent disrespected the legal processes. Respondent was given more
than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed
indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusations of
professional misconduct against him. Respondent grossly neglected the cause of his
client. Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant’s son,
but neglected them. A lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising
from the relationship of counsel and client may cause delay in the administration of
justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the
perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out his
duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical. Respondent failed to return
his Client’s money. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office
expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he
does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the
client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the
intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent was undeserving
of the trust reposed in him. Instead of using the money for the bond of the
complainant’s son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
his dealings with his client.34 He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By keeping
the money for himself despite his undertaking that he would facilitate the release of
complainant’s son, respondent showed lack of moral principles. His transgression
showed him to be a swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the legal profession.