1. Samson vs. Era (A.C. No.

6664, July 16, 2013)

Facts:

Ferdinand Samson and his relatives were among the investors who fell prey to the pyramiding scam
perpetrated by ICS Corporation, a corporation whose corporate officers were led by Emilia Sison.

Samson engaged Atty. Edgardo Era to assist him in the criminal prosecution for estafa of Sison. Later,
Atty. Era informed Samson and the others that undergoing a trial of the cases would just be a waste of
time, money and effort for them, and that they could settle the cases with Sison and her group, with him
guaranteeing the turnover to them of a certain property located in Antipolo City belonging to ICS
Corporation in exchange for their desistance. They acceded and executed the affidavit of desistance.

When Samson and his co-complainants verified the title of the property at the Registry of Deeds, they
learned that they could not liquidate the property because it was no longer registered under the name
of ICS Corporation but was already under the name of Bank Wise Inc.

Samson and his group wrote to Atty. Era to remind him about his guarantee and the promise to settle
the issues with Sison and her cohorts. But they did not hear from Atty. Era at all, forcing them to engage
the services of another lawyer. They were shocked to find out later on, however, that Atty. Era had
already been entering his appearance as the counsel for Sison in her other criminal cases in the other
branches of the RTC in Quezon City involving the same pyramiding scam that she and her ICS
Corporation had perpetrated.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated Canon 17 of the CPR

Held:

Yes. Atty. Era's contention that the lawyer-client relationship ended when Samson and his group entered
into the compromise settlement with Sison was unwarranted. The lawyer-client relationship did not
terminate as of then, for the fact remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the
settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were dismissed or otherwise
concluded by the trial court.

Contrary to Atty. Era's ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the
termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse
to or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the client's confidence
once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment for Canon 17
of the CPR expressly declares that: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."
 2. Mattus vs. Villaseca (A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013)

Facts:

Mary Ann Mattus and two others were the accused in a criminal complaint for estafa. They engaged the
services of Atty. Albert Villaseca to represent them in the proceedings.

According to Mattus, Atty. Villaseca (1) was often absent during court hearings but still collected
appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the postponement of trial when he was present; (3) failed to ask
the RTC to direct a National Bureau of Investigation expert to examine the signatures of the spouses
Leslie and Zuraida Porter 2 in the special power of attorney (SPA); (4) failed to file a demurrer to
evidence despite having been granted sufficient time by the RTC to submit one; (5) failed to present
evidence on behalf of the defense, and only filed a memorandum; (6) did not inform her and German of
the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and the promulgation of judgment; and (7)
erroneously indicated the wrong case number in the notice of appeal. Complainant alleges that Atty.
Villaseca's negligence in handling the case resulted in their conviction.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Villaseca’s actuations are in violation of Canon 17 of the CPR.

Held:

Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility 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." Atty. Villaseca's failure to present
any testimonial, object or documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lack of diligence in
performing his duties as an officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his
clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have
exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence.

While a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he
must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his client's cause. A
memorandum, no matter how lengthy, should not be made a substitute for testimonial, object or
documentary evidence, more so in a criminal case where a conviction could lead to dire consequences.
Utmost fidelity and attention are demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his client's
cause.
3. Soliman vs. Lerios-Amboy (A.C. No. 10568, January 13, 2015)

Facts:

Marilen Soliman claimed that she engaged the services of Atty. Amboy in connection with a partition
case. Atty. Amboy advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case since the other co-owners of
the property were amenable to the partition thereof. Instead, Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance
of the titles to the said property from the co-owners to the individual owners.

Later, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles to the property
because of the failure of the other co-owners to submit certain documents. Atty. Amboy then told
Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a
fee of PhP50,000.00. Soliman thus deposited the said amount to Atty. Amboy's bank account. However,
Atty. Amboy still failed to deliver the respective certificates of title. Atty. Amboy’s secretary thereafter
informed Soliman that their contact in the RD requests for another P10,000.00. Soliman refused to pay
further.

Soliman kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any update on the release of the said titles, but the latter was
not responding to her queries. Soliman and Atty. Amboy's secretary went to the office of a certain Atty.
Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila. Soliman asked Atty. Marasigan if he received the PhP50,000.00 as
payment for the release of the said titles. Atty. Marasigan denied having received any amount to
facilitate the release of the titles and claimed that the reason why the same could not be processed was
that Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents. Soliman further claimed that Atty. Amboy thereafter
refused to release the pertinent documents she gave to her for the processing of the titles to the
property or give back the PhP50,000.00 that was already paid to her.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Amboy violated Canon 17 of the CPR.

Held:

Yes. The CPR clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy failed to submit material documents
relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property. It was
her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title.

To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from
Soliman the amount of PhP50,000.00 to be paid to her "contact" inside the office of the RD. Further,
notwithstanding the payment of PhP50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said
certificates of title. Instead of procuring the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty.
Amboy asked for an additional PhP10,000.00 from Soliman.

Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client.
Atty. Amboy's acts undermined the legal processes, which she swore to uphold and defend.