Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 381
keep the P298.00 in question as his fees, respondent would have retrieved the receipt issued by him
for said sum, stating specifically that it would be used for docket fees, the record on appeal, the
appeal bond and the (printing) of their brief. Moreover, if his failure to pay said docket fees and to
deposit the estimated cost of printing of the record on appeal was due to his decision pursuant to
the aforementioned authority he had allegedly been given to desist from prosecuting the appeal
and to apply the money to the payment of his professional fees, why is it that he filed a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in consequence of
said failure, thereby securing, in effect, an extension of over five (5) months, to make said payment
and deposit, which, eventually, he did not make?
After all, the foregoing acts and omissions of respondent herein dovetail with his subsequent
behaviour. Thus, when, prior to the commencement of this administrative proceedings, complainants'
counsel contacted respondent and advised him to settle the matter with them, respondent said he
would do so, but actually did nothing about it. Hence, the complaint herein was filed. So too, in view
of the allegation in respondent's answer, to the complaint filed by the Solicitor General, to the effect
that he (respondent) had "the intention of introducing additional evidence" before this Court, the
same designated its Legal Officer for the reception of said evidence. Yet, after securing four (4)
postponements of the date set by said officer for this purpose, respondent did not introduce any
additional evidence in his favor. Similarly, when the present case was set for oral argument before
this Court, respondent moved for the postponement of the date set therefor. And, having been given
ten (10) days to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, respondent filed no memorandum in
his favor.
Apart from suggesting a misappropriation of funds held by him in trust for his clients and a
breach of such trust, the foregoing acts and omissions indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of
respondent herein and his unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession.
Respondent Manuel G. Alio is, accordingly, disbarred. His name is ordered stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys and his certificate of Membership of the Philippine Bar, which he is directed to
surrender to the Clerk of Court, within ten (10) days after this judgment has become final, hereby
revoked. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando,
JJ., concur.
check, the respondent kept the funds and failed to settle the case; that the complainants
relying upon the representatives of the respondent believed that the case would be settled
and were unprepared for the trial which took place sometime after the respondent had
assured them that they had "nothing to worry about"; that by reason of the respondent's
representations and conduct, the complainants were forced to a settlement in open court, by
the terms of which, they were sentenced to pay the amount of P3,500 to Eugenio Lim
Pineda; that in order to satisfy the judgment the complainants demanded of the respondent,
the return of the amount of P2,500 (Exhs. B and E of the complainants and Exh. 20 of the
respondent); that to compel the respondent to make such return the complainants had to
appeal to the fiscal of the City of Manila; that by reason of the respondent's conduct the
complainants suffered considerable damages.
The facts above quoted are undeniable and do not leave room for any doubt. It has been clearly
proven by Exhibit A, the authenticity of which is admitted by respondent, that he received the check
No. 1568738-D of the Philippine National bank in the amount of P3,900 to be applied as follows:
P2,500 to be paid to Eugenio Lim Pineda as the agreed price of the amicable settlement between
him and the complainants in civil case No. 3590 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and
P1,400 to be paid to the respondent as attorney's fees. The whole amount of P3,900 was
misappropriated by the respondent notwithstanding the fact that he never carried out the alleged
amicable settlement of the case and the repeated demands made by the complainants for the return
of the money.
We have here a clear case of misappropriation by an attorney of funds entrusted to him by his
clients to be applied to the settlement of a civil case in which he acted as a lawyer. It also clearly
appears that these facts constitute malpractice for which the respondent is accountable.
The contention of the respondent that he had the right to retain the money intended to be paid to
Eugenio Lim Pineda for the protection of certain bondsmen secured by him in favor of the
complainants and that at any rate he was entitled to use all the money because the complainants
were indebted to him in a larger amount as attorney's fees, is untenable and without merit. He
admitted having received the total sum of money for the specific purpose recited in the receipt
signed by him, and we fail to conceive any sound reason by which he should be allowed to misapply
said money entrusted to him. To permit this would amount to sanctioning a flagrant violation of his
obligations as an attorney to his clients and to the public, aside from the criminal aspect which the
case might have.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that Attorney Jose Fernando Rodrigo should be, as he
is hereby, suspended from his profession indefinitely 1 and until he refunds the sum of P3,900 to the
complainants and let this matter be again referred to the Attorney-General for appropriate action,
result thereof to be reported to this court for further proceeding. So ordered.
Avancea, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and
Butte, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1
Modified by resolution of December 23, 1932, fixing the period of suspension for six months.