7/29/2019 9 Pale

1/1

#9 PALE

Lolita Artezuela vs Atty Ricarte B. Maderazo

Facts: Echavia rammed his car into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela at Mandaue City. The

destruction of the carinderia caused cessation of such business, resulting to financial constraint.

Artezuela engaged the services of Maderazo (10k attys fee). Later on she filed for damages against

Echavia. The case was later on dismissed.

Artezuela filed for disbarment against Maderazo. Artezuela alledges that Maderazo neglected his duties

as a lawyer and failed to represent her case with zeal and enthusiasm. She further claims Maderazo

engaged in activities inimical to her interests by preparing Echavias answer to the amended complaint.

The document was also printed in Maderazos office. Maderazo also withdrew as counsel without

consent.

Maderazo denies neglecting his duty and his withdrawal without consent, but admits that Echavias

answer was printed in his office. He claims that Artezuela requested him to prepare Echavias answer

but he declined. Echavia, however, went back to his office and asked Maderazos secretary to print the

document. Maderazo intimated that Artezuela and Echavia have fabricated the accusations against him

to compel him to pay P500k.

Commisioner Ingles of IBP found Maderazo guilty of violation of Canon 6 and 15 (15.03) and

recommends suspension for 1 year.

Board of Governors of the IBP upheld Ingles but modified the penalty to 6 months.

Issue: Whether there is indeed a violation of Canon 6 and 15.03?

Ruling: Yup!

Canon 6 records show that Maderazo repeatedly sought postponement of hearings. It is by his own

negligence that Maderazo was deemed to have waived his right to cross examine Artezuela and her

witness.

Canon 15.03 Madearzo had a direct hand in the preparation of Echavias Answer to the ammeded

complaint. Echavias testimony is credible. Echavia states that he was approached by Maderazo ,

introduced himself as his lawyer and after some meetings required Echavia to sign an answer to the

amended complaint. Maderazos defense that the answer was created by Artezuela is without merit.

Artezuelas lack of legal knowledge could not possibly create the answer. Also if she indeed created the

answer then why would the answer be against her interest and in favor of the other party?

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-

client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting

interests or discharging inconsistent duties.