NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO AND HILDA S. PRESBITERO VS ATT.IVAN M. SOLIDUM JR. A.C NO. 9872, January 8, 2014 PER CURIAM
Facts: Atty. Solidum signed a retainer agreement with Presbitero in assisting and representing her to a several suits. Likewise, Ma. Theresa P. Yulo, daughter of Presbitero, also enganged respondent’s services in handling the lot for the registration her 18.85hectare lot in which Navarro financed. On May 25, 2006 and June 2006 respondent successively obtained a loan from Navarro amounting to P1, 000,000 each time with Memorandum of Agreement agreeing that the loan shall earn interest at the rate of 10% and shall be secured by a real estate covered by TCT 304688. At the same time he then obtained a loan of P1, 000,000 covered by a third MOA except that the real estate mortgage was over a 263 square meter property. However, Presbitero was not satisfied with the property so the respondent promised to execute a real estate mortgage over a 1000 square meter property adjacent to the 4,000 square meter he mortgaged to Navarro but he later did not execute the deed. Complainant’s Argument: They alleged that the respondent induced them to grant him loans by offering very high interest rates, and signed the checks which turned out to be drawn against his son’s account and that the respondent deceived the value of the property that was mortgaged.
Respondent’s Argument: He alleged that Navarro fixed the interest rate and he agreed because he needed the money and denied that the property he mortgaged to Presbitero was less than the value of the loan
Issue: Whether or Not respondent Atty. Ivan Solidum Jr. violated Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Ruling: The Court held that they agree with the IBP-CBD that respondent failed to fulfill his duty and violating Canon 16 and Rule 16.01. The Fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received from his client. The respondent received various amounts from complainants but he could not account for all of them. Respondent has been less than diligent in accounting from the funds he received from Navarro from the registration of Yulo’s Property. The Court also rules that the respondent violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all legal maneuverings to renege his obligation because in his dealings with his client respondent took advantage of his knowledge of the law as well as the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client. That at the time he obtained a loan from Presbitero he was already the retained counsel of the latter. While a MOA secured respondent’s loan from Presbitero, it turned out that respondent misrepresented the value of the property he mortgaged and that the checks he issued were not drawn from his account but from that of his son. He then eventually questioned the terms of the MOA that he himself prepared on the ground that the interest rate is unconscionable. Therefore, the interests of his client Presbitero, the lender in this case, were not fully protected. The court finds the respondent guilty and DISBARS him from the practice of law.
AGOT VS RIVERA A.C NO. 8000, AUGUST 5, 2014 PERLAS-BERNABE, J FACTS: Complainant sought the services of the respondent, who represented himself as an immigration lawyer, to facilitate the issuance of her United States Visa. On November 17, 2007 they entered into a Contract of Legal Services where respondent undertook to facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa in complainant’s favor prior to the scheduled wedding. The complainant paid respondent P350, 000 as down payment and will undertook payment of P350, 000 after the issuance of the U.S Visa with a stipulation that should the complainant be denied for any reason other than her absence on the day of the interview and or records of criminal conviction or any court-issued hold departure order, respondent is obligated to return the said down payment. However the respondent failed to perform the task within the agreed period and worst the complainant was not even scheduled for interview in the US Embassy. Complainant then filed a criminal complaint of Estafa and the instant administrative complaint against respondent when the demand for refund was not heeded. Respondent argued that his failure to comply with his obligation under the contract was due to false pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda who he had believed to be a consul for the US Embassy and to whom he had delivered the amount given by the complainant. Issue: Whether or Not the Respondent violated Canon 16 Rule 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Held: The Court held that respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to refund the amount of P350,000 that complainant paid him. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. Finally, the court sustains the IBP’s recommendation ordering the respondent to return the amount of P350, 000 he received from complainant he received from complainant as down payment. The Court finds Atty. Luis P. Rivera is found guilty of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for 2 years with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with accordingly.
NERY VS SAMPANA A.C NO. 10196, September 09, 2014 CARPIO, ACTING C.J FACTS: Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of the respondent for the annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The petition for annulment was later granted so the complainant paid P200, 000.00 to respondent. As for the adoption complainant paid P100, 000.00 to respondent and no longer asked for receipts since she trusted respondent. On February 14,2009 respondent informed the complainant that he already filed the petition for adoption and it was already published and that the hearing was set to March 5, 2010 but was later reset to March 12, 2010. On March 11, 2010 complainant inquired from Branch 11 of Malolos Bulacan about the status of the petition and discovered that no such petition were filed in the court. Complainant then demanded for the reimbursement of P100, 000.00 she paid him, but the demands were left unheeded. Issue: Whether or Not respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Sampana negelected the legal matter entrusted to him and even kept the money given him, in violation of the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s fund upon demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession. Wherefore respondent is suspended for 3 years from the practice of law
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED VS TORRES A.C NO. 10438, September 23, 2014 PER CURIAM FACTS: Complainant hired respondent as its Legal and Claims Manager who has tasked to serve as its legal counsel and to oversee the administration and management of legal cases and medical-related claims instituted by seafarers against complainants various principals. Among the cases respondent handled were the claims of seafarers Mangi, Sampani, Delgado and Chua. It was alleged that complainant issued checks per respondent’s request as a settlement for the respective claims. However, complainant later discovered that aside from the check of Delgado, respondent never gave the checks to the seafarers instead had them deposited at International Exchange Bank. Complainant also discovered that Sampani only received a total of P225,239.00 out of the P625,013.20 requested through check not issued by complainant. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Canon 16 of the CPR HELD: It has been held that a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the legal profession.
Complainant had duly proven its charges to respondent. In Particular, respondent’s modus operandi of repeatedly requesting checks for the purpose of settling seafarers’ claims against the complainant only to have it deposited to an unauthorized bank account. It is well settled that when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not intend to use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client, which the respondent failed to do. Respondent is therefore found guilty of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
YLAYA VS GACOTT A.C NO. 6475, January 30, 2013 BRION, J. FACTS: Complainant alleged that she and her late husband are the owners of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 162632 and 162633 subject for expropriation proceedings filed in the City Government of Puerto Princesa against former owner Cirillo Arellano which was represented by the respondent. The complainant then alleged that the respondent convinced them to sign a “preparatory deed of sale”, but he left the blank space for the name of the buyer and for the amount of consideration. The respondent then without the complainants consent turns the “Preparatory Deed of Sale” into a “Deed of Absolute Sale” selling the property to Reynold and Sylvia So for P200, 000. Complainants denied that she and Lurentino were paid P200, 000 or that they would sell the property for small amount when they should at least get P6, 000,000 as just compensation. Respondent argued that complainant’s greed to get just compensations caused her to file this “baseless, unfounded, and malicious” disbarment case. ISSUE: Whether or Not respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held: We affirm the IBP Commissioner’s finding that the respondent violated Canon 16. The respondent admits to losing certificates of land titles that were entrusted to his care by Reynold. According to the respondent, the complainant “maliciously retained” the TCTs over the properties sold by Laurentino to Reynold after she borrowed them from his office. Reynold confirms that the complainant took the TCTs from the respondent’s law office.
The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to “hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” Allowing a party to take the original TCTs of properties owned by another an act that could result in damage should merit a finding of legal malpractice. While we note that it was his legal staff who allowed the complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the TCTs, we nevertheless hold the respondent liable, as the TCTs were entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his client’s properties that were in his custody. Wherefore, respondent was found guilty and is suspended for 1 year.
JINON VS. JIZ A.C NO. 9615, March 5, 2013 Perlas-Bernabe, J. FACTS: The complainant alleged that after the death of her brother Charlie, her brother entrusted her 2 land titles covering properties owned by their deceased parents to her sister in law Viola Jinon. Complainant then sold the property in Sta. Barbara, which resulted to a disagreement between her and Viola regarding their respective shares. Viola then refused to return to Gloria TCT NO. T-19598. Complainant then engages the service of the respondent to recover such title. Atty.Jiz on August 2003 instructed Gloria to remit an amount of P45, 000 to answer for the expense transfer. Upon inquiring of the status of the case complainant learned from respondent that Atty. Caras was also handling the same. When she went to the Leganes Property of which has been leased out she discovered that the respondent has been collecting rentals amounting to P12, 000. Complainant then demanded the rentals in which the respondent only gave her P7, 000 stating that the P5, 000 would be added to the expense needed for the transfer of the title to the complainant’s name. Complainant the terminated the legal services of Atty.Jiz because that incident and demanded the return if P45, 000 and P5,000. ISSUE: Whether or Not Atty. Jiz should be held liable for having been remiss in his duties, as a lawyer with respect to the legal services ha had undertaken to perform. Held: 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 qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, 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 Code. “Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity Moreover, money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. “A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.” The Court ruled that having been violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 Canon 16 of the Code of Professional responsibility the respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 2 years
PENILLA VS ALCID A.C NO. 9149, September 4, 2013 Villarama, Jr., J FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of the respondent for a breach of contract case against Spouses Garin
SEGOVIA-RIBAYA VS LAWSIN A.C NO. 7965, November 13,2013 PERLAS-BERNABE, J FACTS: Complainant and Respondent entered into a retainership agreement whereby respondent undertook the processing of the registration and eventually deliver within 6 months the certificate of a certain parcel of land. Respondent received P15,000 and P39,000 to cover for the litigation and land registration expenses. Respondent without proper explanation failed to fulfill his undertakings that prompted complainant to withdraw the subject amount to respondent and sent him 2-demand letter but all to no avail. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violation Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code HELD: Records disclose that respondent admitted the receipt of the subject amount from complainant to cover for pertinent registration expenses but posited his failure to return the same due to his client’s act of confronting him at his office wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then respondent’s obligation to return the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state that complainant’s purported act of “maligning” respondent does not justify the latter’s failure to properly account for and return his client’s money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyer’s duty to his client is one essentially imbued with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful compliance. In this case, despite that singular encounter, respondent had thereafter all the
opportunity to return the subject amount but still failed to do so. Besides, the obligatory force of said duty should not be diluted by the temperament or occasional frustrations of the lawyer’s client, especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyer’s work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal with his client with professional maturity and commit himself towards the objective fulfillment of his responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well as to ensure the smooth turnover of the case to another lawyer. Except only for the retaining lien exception under Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code, the lawyer should not withhold the property of his client. Unfortunately, absent the applicability of such exception or any other justifiable reason therefor, respondent still failed to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code which perforce warrants his administrative liability. The Court finds the respondent GUILTY and is SUSPENDED from the practice of Law for 1 year
