RAMOS V MANDAGAN

posting a bond to secure the latters provisional liberty.

ISSUE
WON

Whether or not Atty. Mandagan is administratively liable.

When the petition for bail of Ramos, however, was denied by

FACTS

the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Mandagan failed to return the

1)

Pedro, charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan,

amount to Ramos. Worse, she unjustifiably refused to turn

2)

hired the services of Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan.

The latter then demanded from him the amount of

over the amount to Ramos despite demand from Ramos

P300,000.00 which shall be used as bail bond in the event his

counsel.
Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the

rule stated in Canon 16 of the CPR

In Belleza v. Atty. Macasa,4 this Court stated that:

petition for bail was granted, and another P10,000.00 as

operating expenses. Nevertheless, his petition for bail was
3)

4)
5)

6)

denied.
Atty. Mandagan, instead of returning the P300,000.00,

[A] lawyer has the duty to deliver his clients funds or

withdrew as counsel in his case and refused to return the

properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to

money despite demand.

Thus, he filed a disbarment case against Atty. Mandagan.
On April 26, 2013, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice of

return the clients money upon demand gives rise to the

presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use

Mandatory Conference directing the parties to appear for a

him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as

mandatory conference. During the mandatory conference,

well as of professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in

however, only Atty. Joselito Frial appeared, as counsel for

the legal profession and deserves punishment. Indeed, it

Ramos, while Atty. Mandagan was absent.

In her answer, Atty. Mandagan averred that the amount was

may border on the criminal as it may constitute a prima facie

to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in

case of swindling or estafa.

used as mobilizaation expenses for preparation of witnesses,

pleadings and other documentary exhibits; it was never

7)

This court cannot give credence to Atty. Mandagans defense

intended as payment of bail. She added that from the time

that the amount she received from Ramos was not for bail

she accepted the case up to her withdrawal as counsel,

but merely for mobilization expenses. Records show that

Ramos never gave her acceptance fees, appearance fees and

Atty. Mandagan failed to substantiate her claim. At any rate,

legal services fees.

The IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation finding

as correctly observed by the IBP-CBD, [Atty. Mandagan]

Atty. Mandagan liable for gross misconduct and for failure to

mobilization expenses if only to dispel any doubt as to its

should be forthright in stating what constitutes legal

render an accounting of funds, and recommended her

suspension from the practice of law for one year. The Report

intended purpose.
Atty. Mandagans failure to make an accounting or to return

and Recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of

the money to Ramos is a violation of the trust reposed on

Governors.

her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be scrupulously

DECISION

careful in handling money entrusted to her in her

YES

professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree

-

finds the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, as

adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors, to be
-

of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.

After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court

-

Nympha C. Mandagan GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule

proper under the circumstances.

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the

16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law

State on those who show that they possess and continue to

for a period of one (1) year effective upon receipt of this

possess the legal qualifications for the profession. As such,

Resolution, with WARNING that a similar offense will be

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

dealt with more severely.

NOTES

legal profession, the courts, and their clients, in accordance

Canon 16

with the values and norms embodied in the Code.

In Cruz-Villanueva v. Atty. Rivera,2 this Court held that:

A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.

When a lawyer receives money from the client for a

Rule 16.01

particular purpose, the lawyer must render an accounting to

the client showing that the money was spent for the
intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must
immediately return the money to the client.
-

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Maria

In the present case, Atty. Mandagan never denied receiving

the amount of P300,000.00 from Ramos for the purpose of

A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received

for or from the client.
Rule 16.03
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand.