YAO vs ATTY.

AURELIO
FACTS: Complainant files a disbarment case aainst t!e respondent for t!e alleed violation of
t!e Oat!. T!e complainant alleed t!at since "#$%&"##' !e retained t!e services of respondent as
!is personal la()er* t!at respondent is a stoc+!older and t!e retained co,nsel of Solar Farms -
Liveli!ood Corporation and Solar Te.tile Finis!in Corporation of (!ic! complainant is a
ma/orit) stoc+!older* t!at complainant p,rc!ased several parcels of land ,sin !is personal f,nds
b,t (ere reistered in t!e name of t!e corporations ,pon t!e advice of respondent* t!at
respondent0 (!o (as also t!e brot!er in&la( of complainant1s (ife0 !ad in "### a disareement
(it! t!e latter and respondent demanded t!e ret,rn of !is investment in t!e corporations b,t
(!en complainant ref,sed to pa)0 !e filed ei!t c!ares for estafa and falsification of
commercial doc,ments aainst t!e complainant and !is (ife and t!e ot!er officers of t!e
corporation* t!at respondent also filed a complaint aainst complainant for alleed non&
compliance (it! t!e reportorial re2,irements of t!e Sec,rities and E.c!ane Commission 3SEC4
(it! t!e Office of t!e Cit) 5rosec,tor of 6andal,)on Cit) and anot!er complaint (it! t!e
Office of t!e Cit) 5rosec,tor of 6alabon Cit) for alleed violation of Section %' of t!e
Corporation Code* t!at respondent also filed a similar complaint before t!e Office of t!e Cit)
5rosec,tor of San 7ose 8el 6onte0 9,lacan.
ISSUE: :as t!ere a violation of Canon "% (!en t!e respondent filed similar complaints aainst
t!e complainant (!o is also connected to !im b) affinit);
R,lin: Yes. Canon "% of t!e Code of 5rofessional Responsibilit) provides t!at a la()er o(es
fidelit) to t!e ca,se of !is client and s!all be mindf,l of t!e tr,st and confidence reposed on !im.
T!e lon&establis!ed r,le is t!at an attorne) is not permitted to disclose comm,nications made to
!im in !is professional c!aracter b) a client0 ,nless t!e latter consents. T!is obliation to
preserve t!e confidences and secrets of a client arises at t!e inception of t!eir relations!ip. T!e
protection iven to t!e client is perpet,al and does not cease (it! t!e termination of t!e
litiation0 nor is it affected b) t!e part)<s ceasin to emplo) t!e attorne) and retainin anot!er0 or
b) an) ot!er c!ane of relation bet(een t!em. It even s,rvives t!e deat! of t!e client.
Respondent1s act of filin m,ltiple s,its on similar ca,ses of action in different ven,es
constit,tes for,m&s!oppin. T!is !i!li!ts !is motives rat!er t!an !is ca,se of action.
Respondent too+ advantae of !is bein a la()er in order to et bac+ at t!e complainant. In
doin so0 !e !as inevitabl) ,tili=ed information !e !as obtained from !is dealins (it!
complainant and complainant1s companies for !is o(n end.
5E>ALTY: ? mont!s s,spension
SA>TIA@O ET AL. vs FO7AS
FACTS: Complainants0 ,nion officer0 so,!t t!e services of Att). Fo/as as t!eir co,nsel in a
labor case pendin (!ere a certain Salvador (as e.pelled b) t!e complainants. T!e respondent
failed to ta+e t!e proper leal remed)0 t!at instead of filin an ans(er0 !e filed a motion for
reconsideration (!ic! (as later denied. T!e co,rt !eld t!at case in favor of Salvador and
declared t!e officers in defa,lt. t!e complainants no( see+ t!e co,rt t!at respondent be p,nis!ed
for !is fail,re to e.ercise t!e proper effort and dilience over t!e case. T!e) f,rt!er alleed t!at
respondent (o,ld often ens,re t!em t!e victor) of t!e case0 b,t failed to ,pdate t!em abo,t t!e
matters. t!e la()er (o,ld t!en attrib,te s,c! fail,re to ans(er to !is b,s) sc!ed,le.
ISSUE: :as t!ere a violation of Client&Attorne) Relations!ip;
RULI>@: Yes. Canon "% of t!e Code of 5rofessional Responsibilit) provides t!at a la()er o(es
fidelit) to t!e ca,se of !is client and s!all be mindf,l of t!e tr,st and confidence reposed on !im.
T!ere (as c,lpable nelience on t!e la()er1s part (!en !e failed to ta+e t!e proper action for
t!e best of t!e interest of !is clients. T!e respondent<s nelience is not e.c,sed b) !is claim t!at
Civil Case >o. A'B?&C&#" (as in fact a Dlosin ca,seD for t!e complainants since t!e claims
t!erein for damaes (ere based on t!e final decision of t!e 6ed&Arbiter declarin t!e
complainants< act of e.pellin Salvador from t!e ,nion to be illeal. T!is claim is a mere
aftert!o,!t (!ic! !ardl) pers,ades t!e Co,rt. If indeed t!e respondent (as so convinced of t!e
f,tilit) of an) defense t!erein0 !e s!o,ld !ave seasonabl) informed t!e complainants t!ereof.
F,rt!ermore0 5ress,re and lare vol,me of leal (or+ provide no e.c,se for t!e respondent<s
inabilit) to e.ercise d,e dilience in t!e performance of !is d,t) to file an ans(er. Ever) case a
la()er accepts deserves !is f,ll attention0 dilience0 s+ill0 and competence0 reardless of its
importance and (!et!er !e accepts it for a fee or for free.
5E>ALTY: Reprimanded.