You are on page 1of 5

Jison vs.

Jiz

The complaint alleged that Gloria, after the death of her brother Charlie in July Ruling: Yes.
2001, entrusted two (2) land titles covering properties owned by their deceased
parents to her sister-in-law, Viola J. Jinon (Viola): one located in Mangasina, Sta. After considering the parties’ arguments and the records of this case, this court
Barbara, Iloilo (Sta. Barbara Property) and the other at No. 12 Valencia St., resolves to adopt and approve the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-839 dated
Poblacion, Leganes, Iloilo (Leganes Property) covered by Transfer Certificate of June 22, 2013 of the IBP Board of Governors.
Title (TCT) No. T-119598.2 Eventually, Gloria sold the Sta. Barbara Property,which
resulted in disagreements between her and Viola regarding their respective It has been said that "[t]he practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who
shares in the proceeds. Consequently, Viola refused to return to Gloria TCT No. meet the high standards oflegal proficiency and morality. Any conduct that shows
T119598, prompting Gloria to engage the services of Atty. Jizon April 29, 2003 to a violation of the norms and values of the legal profession exposes the lawyer to
recover the said title, for which she immediately paid an acceptance fee of administrative liability."35
₱17,000.00.3 In their subsequent meeting, Atty. Jizassured the transferof the title
in Gloria's name. On August 13, 2003, Gloria, upon Atty. Jiz's instructions, An examination of the records reveals that respondent violated the Code of
remitted the amount of ₱45,000.004 to answer for the expenses of the transfer. Professional Responsibility.
However, when she later inquired about the status of her case, she was surprised
to learn from Atty. Jizthat a certain Atty. Caras was handling the same.
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Issue: whether Atty. Jiz should be held administratively liable for having been
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
remiss in his duties as a lawyer with respect to the legal services he had
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
undertaken to perform for his client, Gloria.

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
Ruling:
received for or from the client.

After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the findings of
Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from
Commissioner Villanueva and the IBP Board of Governors
his own and those of others kept by him.
that 11 Id. at 155. Decision 5 A.C. No. 9615 Atty.
Jiz was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his client’s case,
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
misappropriating her funds and disobeying the CBD’s lawful orders requiring the
or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so
submission of his pleadings and his attendance at hearings. He should thus be
much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements,
suspended from the practice of law in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.
giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
provided for in the Rules of Court.
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
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s
perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for
the client.

Sps. San Pedro vs. Atty. Mendoza


Similarly, Rule138, Section 25 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. — When an attorney


unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he
Facts:
may be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in
his official transactions; but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a
On or about November 21, 1996, complainants engaged the services of criminal prosecution.
respondent to facilitate the transfer of title to property, in the name of Isabel
Azcarraga Marcaida, to complainants.2 Complainants then gave respondent a
A lawyer’s duty under Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
check for ₱68,250.00 for the payment of transfer taxes.3 They also gave
clear:
respondent a check for ₱13,800.00 for respondent’s professional fee.4

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel and client imposes on a
Respondent failed to produce the title despite complainants’ repeated follow-
lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or
ups.5
from the client[,] [thus] . . . [w]hen a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees,
Several letters were sent by respondent explaining the delay in the transfer of transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the client
title.6 However, respondent still failed to produce the title. how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended
purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render
Complainants subsequently referred the case to the barangay.7 Respondent an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money
refused to return the amount complainants gave for the transfer taxes.8 does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Complainants were then issued a certificate to file action.9 They also sent a letter Professional Responsibility.
demanding the refund of the money intended for the transfer taxes.10
Respondent still did not return the money. [The lawyer’s] failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of
and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.36 (Emphasis supplied)

Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Respondent admitted that there were delays in the transfer of title of property to
Professional Responsibility for failing to hold in trust the money of his clients? complainants’ name.1âwphi1 He continuously assured complainants that he
would still fulfill his duty. However, after three (3) years and several demands
from complainants, respondent failed to accomplish the task given to him and until fully paid, without prejudice to the filing of a collection case for retainer’s
even refused to return the money. Complainants’ alleged failure to provide the fee against complainant Luna. Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR
necessary documents to effect the transfer does not justify his violation of his which prohibits a lawyer from representing conflicting interests and which
duty under the CPR. enjoins a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with clients
Jun B. Luna vs Atty, Dwight M. Galarrita AC 10662, July 07, 2015 Leonen, J.

Foronda v. Alvarez A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014


Facts: Luna filed an Affidavit-Complaint against his lawyer, Atty. Galarrita before
the IBP. He alleged that he retained Atty. Galarrita’s legal services in filing a Facts: The complainant institute a case for the nullification of her marriage. The
foreclosure complaint against Jose Calvario who allegedly owed him P100,000 respondent was referred to her and the complainant agreed to engage his
secured by a Real Estate Mortage. After his formal offer of evidence, Atty. services for a fee of ₱195,000.00. The complainant averred that the respondent
Galarrita opted to enter into a settlement with the other party without informing promised to file the petition after he received the full payment of his attorney’s
fee. The complainant inquired about the status of her case and was allegedly told
him and without delivering to him the settlement proceeds. When Luna learned
by the respondent that her petition was pending in court; and in another time,
of the settlement, he wrote to the respondent stating that the settlement is
she was told that a decision by the court was already forthcoming. However,
beyond what they discussed. Atty. Galarrita replied that he entered into the when she came back to the country in May 2009, the respondent told her that
settlement because he was certain that it was better than winning the case and her petition was still pending in court and apologized for the delay. Eventually,
asked for understanding since he had not received any appearance fee for the complainant was able to get a copy of her petition and found out that it was
numerous hearings. Luna mentioned that delay in retainer’s fee payments was filed a year later. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the week
due to Atty. Galarrita’s negligence in handling the case. The respondent after she signed the contract of service with the respondent, the latter requested
for a meeting. Thinking that they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But
explained that the reason why the case was archived was because he could not
during the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in the lending
attend several hearings for lack of meal and transportation allowance going to business allegedly ran by the respondent’s sister-in-law which he said can earn
Gumaca, Quezon, but such fact is moot because the case was not dismissed by five percent (5%) interest per month. According to the complainant, upon
the court. Luna received a letter from one of the heirs of Jose Calvario, Emma presentment of these checks, the drawee-bank honored the first two (2) checks,
Tayag, and again from Lutchiare Calvario, regarding the delivery of title since they but the rest were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. When
paid the P100,000 settlement amount. In his answer, Atty. Glarrita prays for the she brought the matter to the respondent, he promised to pay her in cash. He
dismissal of the disbarment case, claiming that he entered into the Compromise actually paid her certain amounts as interest through her representative.
Nevertheless, the respondent failed to pay the entire obligation as promised.
Agreement by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. Also, he added that under
their General Retainership Agreement, Luna shall pay him P4,000 monthly and
after 4 years, the client owes him an unpaid balance of P208,000. He argues for
an application of the rule on retaining lien. The Investigating Commissioner found Issue: Whether the delay of filing of the petition and issuance of worthless check
constitute disbarment to the Respondent?
Atty. Galarrita guilty of violation Rule 16.03 of the CPR and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for 1 year. The IBP board of Governors
modified the recommendation, recommending the respondent’s suspension
from the practice of law for 6 months and ordered to return the amount of Held: No, the Court finds that the penalty of six months suspension only from the
practice of law is commensurate, with a stem warning that a repetition of any of
P100,000.
the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a
heavier penalty. The Court very well takes note of the fact that the criminal
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for charges filed against the respondent have been dismissed upon an affidavit of
entering into a Compromise Agreement without his client’s consent, then desistance executed by the complainant. The Court also acknowledges that he
refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received. dutifully participated in the proceedings before the IBP-CBD and that he
completely settled his obligation to the complainant, as evidenced by the
Acknowledgment Receipt signed by the complainant’s counsel. Therein, it was
Held: Yes. Complainant Luna entrusted Atty. Galarrita with handling the civil case
acknowledged that the respondent paid the amount of ₱650,000.00 in payment
involving a mortgaged land in Quezon Province, however, without his consent, for the checks he issued in favor of the complainant; for the attorney’s fees he
the latter settled the case with the other party. There are compelling reasons to received for the annulment case; and cost and expenses that the complainant
believe that Luna had not given any authority to enter into a Compromise incurred in relation to the cases the latter filed against the respondent including
Agreement: firstly, Luna was not a party to the Compromise Agreement despite the instant complaint with the IBP. The respondent was able to file, albeit
the fact that he was not abroad when the agreement was executed; secondly, belatedly, the complainant’s petition. In addition, he returned in full the money
he received as attorney’s fee in spite of having gone through all the trouble of
there was no indication that he had agreed to the amount of P100,000; thirdly,
preparing the required petition and in filing the same – not to mention the cost
he was not seasonable informed of the execution of the Compromise Agreement.
he incurred for the purpose.
Even if such authority was given, the SPA still cannot justify the Compromise
Agreement on February 14, 2006. The SPA was executed on September 16, 2002
before the filing of the complaint. The conclusion seems to be that the authority
given was to enter into a possible settlement during the preliminary conference Natividad Navarro vs Ivan Solidum, Jr.
or pre-trial. Rule 16.03 under Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon A.C. No. 9872 – Legal Ethics – Duty of Lawyer to Account for Client’s Money
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
Canon 16 applies sans lawyer-client relationship
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. The respondent entered into the In April 2006, Hilda Presbitero engaged the services of Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. to
Compromise Agreement without the client’s consent and continued to act in bad help her in the quieting of her title over a parcel of land. Presbitero paid Solidum
fait by refusing to turn over the P100,000 settlement amount received. It is not P50,000.00 as acceptance fee.
amiss to state that he entered into the said agreement with the motivation to In May 2006, Ma. Theresa Yulo, daughter of Presbitero also engaged the services
hold on to it and pave the way for the payment of his attorney’s fees. In doing so, of Solidum for the registration of a parcel of land. Yulo however asked the help of
he violated the trust reposed in him by his client and violated Rule 16.03. The CPR her sister, Natividad Navarro, to finance the case. Hence, Navarro gave Solidum
allows the lawyer to apply the money retained to satisfy his lawful fees. However. Php200,000.00 for the registration expenses.
This provision assumes that the client agrees with the lawyer as to the amount of
Meanwhile, Solidum in May and June 2006, obtained a total of Php2 million from
the attorney’s fees and as to the application of the client’s fund to pay his lawful Navarro. The loan was covered by two Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs). The
fees and disbursements. Atty. Galarrita is suspended from the practice of law for MOA was prepared by Solidum. The MOA stated that the monthly interest shall
2 years, with a stern warning. He is ordered to return to the complainant Luna be 10%.
the amount of P100,000 with legal interest of 6% per annum from February 2006
Solidum also borrowed Php 1 million from Presbitero during the same period. He 25% attorney's fees and refund of expenses in the total amount of P72,275.13.
again drafted a MOA containing the same terms and conditions as with Navarro.
As additional security for the loan, Solidum mortgaged his 263-hectare land for Respondent asserts that, in any event, complainant will still be receiving a sum
P1 million in favor of Presbitero. greater than what he expects to receive. He avers that complainant is still
entitled to receive from spouses Lopez the sum of P93,491.60. Adding the
Nothing happened in the quieting of title case field by Presbitero since Solidum P17,000.00 respondent previously remitted to complainant, the latter will get a
did nothing after receiving the acceptance fee. total amount of P110,491.60. This amount, according to respondent, exceeds the
amount of P100,000.00 complainant agreed to and expected to receive.
In the land registration case of Yulo financed by Navarro, Navarro later found out
that the land was already registered to someone else. Navarro claims that she Issue
should not have financed the case if only Solidum advised her of the status of the
land. The essential issue in this case is whether the respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct for his failure to promptly account to his client the funds received in
Anent the loans, Solidum failed to pay them. Instead, he questioned the terms of
the course of his professional engagement and return the same upon demand.
the loans as he claimed that the interest rate of said loans at 10% is
unconscionable.

Navarro and Presbitero later filed an administrative case against Solidum. The Court's Ruling

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. should be disbarred. "The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their
HELD: Yes. fiduciary relationship."[13] Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code imposes upon the
lawyer the duty to "account for all money or property collected or received for or
Although Solidum acted in his private capacity when he obtained a total of Php3
from the client." Rule 16.03 thereof, on the other hand, mandates that "[a]
million from Navarro and Presbitero, he may still be disciplined for misconduct
lawyer shall deliver the funds x x x of his client when due or upon demand."
committed either in his private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
In this case, respondent on nine separate occasions from February 5, 2004 to
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. In this
April 30, 2004 received payments for attorney's fees and partial payments for
case, such act displayed by Solidum merited his disbarment.
monetary awards on behalf of complainant from spouses Lopez. But despite the
Solidum is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his number of times over close to three months he had been receiving payment,
professional capacity with respect to his client, Presbitero, and in his private respondent neither informed the complainant of such fact nor rendered an
capacity with respect to Navarro. Both Presbitero and Navarro allowed accounting thereon. It was only when an Alias Writ of Execution was issued and
Splidum to draft the terms of the loan agreements. Solidum drafted the MOAs being implemented when complainant discovered that spouses Lopez had
knowing that the interest rates were exorbitant. Later, using his knowledge of the already given respondent the total amount of P95,000.00 as partial payment for
law, he assailed the validity of the same MOAs he prepared. the monetary awards granted to him by the labor tribunal.

In the case of Navarro, who financed the Yulo case, Solidum also violated Canon To make matters worse, respondent withheld and refused to deliver to the
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall complainant said amount, which he merely received on behalf of his client, even
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his after demand. Complainant brought the matter before the barangay, but
possession. This is notwithstanding the fact that Navarro is not actually his client respondent simply ignored the same. Such failure and inordinate refusal on the
in the Yulo case but was only the financier of the Yulo case. part of the respondent to render an accounting and return the money after
demand raises the presumption that he converted it to his own use. [14] His
In Presbitero’s case, since Presbitero is his client, Solidum also violated Rule 16.04 unjustified withholding of the funds also warrants the imposition of disciplinary
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not action against him
borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice. Even though Solidum secured
the loan with a mortgage and a MOA, Presbitero’s interest was not fully
protected because the property Solidum mortgaged was overvalued. He claimed Spouses Concepcion v Atty. Elmer dela Rosa
that his 263-hectare land was worth P1 million but in fact Solidum sold it later for
only P150,000.00. Clearly, Presbitero was disadvantaged by Solidum’s ability to A.C. No. 10681
use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation. He took advantage of
his knowledge of the law as well as the trust and confidence reposed in him by
February 03, 2015
his client.

Solidum was disbarred by the Supreme Court.

Facts: This is an administrative case that stemmed from a verified complaint filed
Viray vs. Sanicas by complainants Sps. Concepcion against respondent Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa,
Complainant also discovered that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez charging him with gross misconduct for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the
that he is authorized to receive payments on his behalf, when in truth and in fact CPR.
he is not. Consequently, complainant made several verbal demands to the
respondent to remit to him the amount of P95,000.00, less his attorney's fees of
P20,000.00. But respondent did not budge. Thus, complainant lodged a
complaint before the Office of the Punong Barangay of Brgy. Felisa, Bacolod
City. Respondent, however, ignored the summons to attend a conference before Complainant alleges that from 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as
the barangay to resolve the issues. their retained lawyer and counsel. Complainants wanted to open their pawnshop
business but did not materialize and Atty. Dela Rosa, as their counsel, knew of
In his Comment,[5] respondent admits that he received P95,000.00 from spouses the fact that complainants had money intact form their failed venture, and
Lopez on installments, but denies that he was not authorized to accept it. He borrowed money from them in the amount of P2.5M. The checks were issued
explains that complainant agreed to pay him additional attorney's fees equivalent and Atty. Dela Rosa photocopied them and verified he received the original
to 25% of the total monetary award, on top of the attorney's fees that may be
checks and that he promises to pay them within 5 days with an interest of 5%.
awarded by the labor tribunal, and to refund all expenses respondent incurred
relative to the case. Thus, from the total award of P189,491.60, the sum of The checks were personally encased by him.
P17,226.57 representing respondent's professional fees has to be deducted,
leaving a balance of P172,275.13.[6] Then from said amount, complainant
proposed that he will get P100,000.00 and the balance of P72,275.13 shall belong
to respondent as and for his additional 25% attorney's fees and reimbursement
Atty. Dela Rosa failed to pay and despite numerous demands from the
for all expenses he incurred while handling the case. However, after receiving
the amount of P95,000.00 and deducting therefrom the amounts of Complainant, did not return the money. Hence an administrative complaint was
P20,000.00[7] attorney's fees, P17,000.00 earlier given to complainant, and filed against him by Sps. Concepcion.
P2,000.00 paid to the sheriff, what was left to respondent was only
P56,000.00. Respondent whines that this amount is way below the promised
the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to complainant,
Citystate Savings Bank Check No. 0088551, dated August 31, 2011, in the amount
Respondent denied borrowing the P2.5M insisting that Nault was the real debtor. of P34,500.00. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn
that the check was dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed." [4] Complainant
He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to collect from Nault and
immediately notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.
that he was engaged for that specific purpose.
In a letter,[5] dated March 23, 2012, complainant demanded for the refund of the
acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the "abandonment" of
the cases and the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail.
The investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that respondent’s actions
degraded the integrity of the legal profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and For his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for violation of
Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR. Respondent’s failure to appear during the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Las Pinas
mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CPD. City, against him.[7]
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be
disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2.5M to complainants, with On June 7, 2012, a verified complaint was filed with the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD),[8] where complainant prayed for the disbarment of
stipulated interest.
respondent lawyer on account of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer and commission of acts in violation of the lawyer's oath. The IBP-CBD
required respondent lawyer to submit his answer to the complaint.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating


Commissioner’s Report but reduced the penalty against respondent to indefinite Ruling:
suspension from the practice of law and ordered the return of the P2.5M to the
As to the penalty commensurate to respondent lawyer's actions, the Court takes
complainants with legal interest.
heed of the guidepost provided by jurisprudence, viz.: "Disbarment should not be
decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or
fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the
consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring
Issue: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the person."[29]Hence, caution is called for amidst the Court's plenary power to
discipline erring lawyers. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[30] the Court finds it
CPR.
proper to impose the penalty of three-year suspension against respondent
lawyer, with a stern warning that a repetition of any of the infractions attributed
to him in this case, or any similar act, shall merit a heavier penalty.

Held: The court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its recommended Anent the monetary demands made by complainant, the Court reiterates the rule
penalty and its directive to return the amount of P2.5M, with legal interest to that in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the
officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the
complainants.
Bar.[31] Thus, the Court is not concerned with the erring lawyer's civil liability for
money received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. Accordingly, it cannot order
respondent lawyer to make the payment for the subject jewelry he pawned, the
Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing value of which is yet to be determined in the appropriate proceeding.
money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected:
As to the return of acceptance fees, a clarification is in order. The Investigating
Commissioner erred in referring to them as "attorney's fees"—
 Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in truest all moneys and properties
of his clients that may come in possession.
 Canon 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client As to the charge that respondent abandoned the cases he accepted after
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the payment of attorney's fees, this commission is not fully satisfied that the
case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money complainant was able to prove it with substantial or clear evidence. It was not
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance fully explained in the complaint how or in what manner were the cases
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client "abandoned" by the respondent; and what prejudice was caused to the
complainant. This Commission noted that not a single document or order coming
from the court of prosecutor's office was appended to the Complaint-Affidavit
that would at least apprise this body of what the respondent actually did with the
The court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and
cases he represented.[32]
his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural
tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against There is a distinction between attorney's fee and acceptance fee. It is well-settled
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his clients is intended to prevent the that attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary
lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. concept.[33] In its ordinary sense, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered.
Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is awarded by the court to
the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for
damages.[34] On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by
Dispositive Portion: Wherefore, respondent Atty. Elmer dela Rosa is found guilty the lawyer for merely accepting the case. This is because once the lawyer agrees
of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional to represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party
Responsibility. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, this incurs an opportunity
years effective finality of the decision, with a stern warning that a commission of cost by merely accepting the case of the client which is therefore indemnified by
the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee only seeks to
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely
compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature
and extent of the legal services rendered.[35]
PAULINA T. YU COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.
In the case at bench, the amounts of P20,000.00, P18,000.00, and P15,000.00,
respectively, were in the nature of acceptance fees for cases in which respondent
lawyer agreed to represent complainant. Despite this oversight of the
On November 29, 2011, while the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting,
Investigating Commissioner, the Court affirms the finding that aside from her
respondent lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and pledged
bare allegations, complainant failed to present any evidence showing that
the same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29,945.50, as
respondent lawyer committed abandonment or neglect of duty in handling of
shown in the Promissory Note with Deed of Pledge.[3] Respondent lawyer
cases. Hence, the Court sees no legal basis for the return of the subject
appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In order to facilitate
acceptance fees. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin R. Dela
Cruz GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Not only do we find complainant's version
of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice more credible but we also note the glaring inconsistencies in respondent lawyer's
of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN WARNING allegations.

Pedro Ramos vs. Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan Respondent lawyer claims that as a mere associate in the Zaragoza-Macabangkit
A.C. No. 11128 April 6, 2016 Law offices, "he has NO participation whatsoever regarding the fees the
(Legal Ethics; Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility) complainant is giving to the office."[15] But, as pointed out by Commissioner
Cachapero, respondent lawyer himself admitted that he received "P7,000.00 for
the docket fees and the rest [was paid] as advance fees for his services and the
Facts usual visitation done [by] him at the hospital."[16] Because of this admission, it can
be concluded that respondent lawyer received fees "for his services" from the
Atty. Mandagan demanded three hundred thousand pesos from Ramos to be
complainant himself.
used as bail bond in the event that his petition for bail in the latter’s criminal case
is granted. Ramos’ bail was denied and Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel
without returning the amount despite the demand sent by Ramos’ new counsel.

Atty. Mandagan argued that the amount was not intended for payment of bail,
but as mobilization expenses. She also alleged that she was never paid
acceptance and appearance fees for legal services.

Issue
Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Ruling
Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The respondent’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to the


client is a violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, she should be
scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to her in her professional
capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members
of the bar.

The defense that the amount she received was merely for mobilization expenses
was not substantiated by the records.

DATU ISMAEL MALANGAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. PAUL C. ZAIDE,


RESPONDENT.

Complainant engaged respondent lawyer's professional services to prosecute his


complaint for damages against therein defendants Alfeche and NEMA; that he
gave respondent lawyer P20,000.00 as acceptance fee and P50,000.00 as filing
fees; that respondent lawyer made him believe that the amount of P50,000.00
was needed as filing fees in order to commence a P5 million-damage suit
covering the accrued and anticipated damages caused by the accident; that
subsequently, respondent lawyer filed on his behalf a complaint for damages
before the RTC of Iligan City, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 6380; that
respondent lawyer then furnished him (complainant) with a copy of said
Complaint seeking to recover damages in the amount of P5 million; and that to
assure him that the complaint had indeed been filed, this complaint was stamped
"received" by the RTC.

According to complainant, he later discovered, however, that his Complaint had


been dismissed by the RTC because of "failure to prosecute," for the reason that
respondent lawyer did not attend two hearings in the case, and also because
respondent lawyer did not submit an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed
therein by NEMA; that on account of this, he asked respondent lawyer to file a
Motion for Reconsideration, only to find out later that respondent lawyer not
only did not file a motion for reconsideration from the Order of dismissal issued
by the RTC, but worse, respondent lawyer instead filed a Withdrawal of
Appearance as counsel effectiyely leaving him without counsel to prosecute his
case; and that after this, he sent a relative to the RTC, where he further
discovered through this relative that the amount of damages sought in the
Complaint filed by respondent lawyer was only P250,000.00, and not P5 million,
as stated in the copy of the Complaint given to him by respondent lawyer.

Our Ruling

After a careful review of the records, we find respondent lawyer guilty of


professional misconduct and of violating Canons 1,[12] 16,[13]and 18[14] of the Code

You might also like