A Lawyer Has The Duty To Deliver His Client’s Funds Or Properties As They Fall Due Or Upon Demand. His Failure To Return The Client’s oney Upon Demand !ives Rise To The Presumption That He has isappropriated isappropriated "t For His Own Use To The Pre#udi$e O% And in &iolation O% The Trust Reposed "n Him 'y The Client( RAMOS , COMPLAINANT COMPL AINANT,, VS. ATTY TTY.. MARIA NYMPHA NYM PHA C. MANDAGAN, TH"RD D"&")"O*+ A.C. *o. ,,,-+ ,,,-+ April /0+ -/,0+PEDRO RAMOS, RESPONDENT.
The Case1 Pedro, charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan, hired the services of Atty. Atty. Maria Maria Nympha Mandagan. The latter then demanded from him the amount of P3,. which shall be used as bail bond in the event his petition for bail was granted, and another P!,. as operating e"penses. Nevertheless, his petition for bail bail was denied. Atty. Atty. Mandagan, instead of returning returning the P3,., withdrew as counsel in his case and refused to return the money despite demand. Thus, he filed a disbarment case against Atty. Atty. Mandagan. #n her answer, Atty. Atty. Mandagan averred that the amount was used as mobilisation e"penses for preparation of witnesses, pleadings and other documentary e"hibits$ it was never intended as payment payment of bail. She added that from the the time she accepted the case up to her withdrawal as counsel, %amos never gave her acceptance fees, appearance fees and legal services fees. The #&P'(&) issued a %eport and %ecommendation finding Atty. Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to render an accounting of funds, and recommended her suspension from the practice of law for one year. The %eprot and %ecommendation was adopted by the #&P &oard of *overnors. The "ssue1 +hether or not Atty. Mandagan is administratively liable. The Rulin21 After a careful review of the records of the case, the (ourt finds the %eport and %ecommendation of the #&P'(&), as adopted and approved by the #&P &oard of *overnors, to be proper under the circumstances. c ircumstances. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal ualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are e"pected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four'fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts, and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the (ode.! #n Cruz-Villanueva v. Atty. Rivera, Rivera ,- this (ourt held that +hen a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer must render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. (onseuently, if the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.3 /(itations omitted0 #n the present case, Atty. Atty. Mandagan never denied receiving the amount of P3,. from %amos for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the latter1s provisional liberty. +hen the petition for bail of %amos, however, was denied by the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Atty. Mandagan failed to return the amount to %amos. +orse, she un2ustifiably refused to turn over the amount to %amos despite demand from %amos1 counsel. (learly, (learly, Atty. Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance accord ance with the rule stated in (anon ! of the (P%, to wit (anon !. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. %ule !.! A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. """" %ule !.3 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. " " ". #n Belleza v. Atty. Macasa, Macasa ,4 this (ourt stated that 5A6 lawyer has the duty to deliver his client1s funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. 7is failure to return the client1s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the pre2udice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. #t is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics$ it impairs public confidence in
the legal profession and deserves punishment. #ndeed, it may border on the criminal as it may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa.8 /(itations omitted0 This court cannot give credence to Atty. Mandagan1s defense that the amount she received from %amos was not for bail but merely for mobili9ation e"penses. %ecords show that Atty. Mandagan failed to substantiate her claim. At any rate, as correctly observed by the #&P'(&), :5Atty. Mandagan6 should be forthright in stating what constitutes legal mobili9ation e"penses if only to dispel any doubt as to its intended purpose.; Atty. Mandagan1s failure to maffice of the &ar (onfidant, the #ntegrated &ar of the Philippines and the >ffice of the (ourt Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. )O ORD4R4D. R454)+ 6.1 Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), eralta, erez, and Jar!eleza, JJ., concur.
