FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 2519.
August 29, 2000]
TEODORO R. RIVERA, ANTONIO D. AQUINO and FELIXBERTO
D. AQUINO, complainants, vs. ATTY. SERGIO ANGELES, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On March 25,
1983, complainants filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Sergio
Angeles on the grounds of Deceit and Malpractice. The Affidavit-Complaint[1] reads as follows:
“1.....The undersigned
are plaintiffs in Civil Cases Nos. Q-12841 and Q-13128 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City;
2.....Atty. Sergio
Angeles is their counsel of record in the said cases and his office is located
at Suite 335, URC Building, 2123 España, Manila;
3.....That after
receiving favorable decision from the CFI on May 21, 1973 and sustained by the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court an alias writ of execution was issued in
said cases;
4.....That in the first
week of January 1983 we obtained from the CFI a sheriff’s return, dated
November 10, 1982, stating that no leviable property can be found in the
premises of the defendants;
5.....That on or before
January 13, 1983, we learned that Mr. Rodolfo M. Silva, one of the defendants
in said cases had already given Atty. Angeles a partial settlement of the
judgment in the amount of P42,999.00 (as evidenced by xerox copies of Partial
Settlement of Judgment dated September 21, 1982 and Receipt of Payment dated
September 22, 1982, hereto attached as Annexes “A” and “B”, respectively),
without our knowledge.
6.....That Atty. Sergio
Angeles never informed the undersigned of the amount of P42,999.00 he received
from Mr. Silva nor remitted to them even a part of that amount;
7.....That a demand
letter was sent to Atty. Sergio Angeles which was received by him on February
17, 1983, but as of this date the undersigned have not yet received any reply.
(See Exhibit “C” and “D” attached).”
In his Comment
filed on June 21, 1983, respondent denied the accusations and stated that he
has the right to retain the said amount of P42,999.00 and to apply the same to
professional fees due him under the subsequent agreement first with complainant
Teodoro Rivera and later with Mrs. Dely Dimson Rivera as embodied in the Deed
of Assignment (Annex “8”)[2] or under the
previous agreement of P20% of P206,000.00.
Complainants, in
their Reply,[3] vehemently denied
the assignment of their rights to respondent.
Thereafter, this
case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation in our Resolution dated November 21, 1983. The Office of the Solicitor General
considered this case submitted for resolution on April 30, 1985 by declaring
respondent’s right to present evidence as considered waived due to the latter’s
failure to appear on the scheduled hearings.
However, the records from said Office do not show any resolution.
In October 1998,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued an Order requiring the parties to
manifest whether or not they are still interested in prosecuting this case, or
whether supervening events have transpired which render this case moot and
academic or otherwise. The copy of said
Order sent to the complainants was received by their counsel on October 30,
1998 while the copy to the respondent was returned unclaimed.
Investigating
Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo submitted his report on April 29, 1999 finding
respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 thereof and
recommends his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on June 19, 1999, issued a
resolution, the decretal portion of which reads:
“RESOLUTION NO. XIII-99-151
Adm. Case No. 2519
Teodoro R. Rivera, et al. vs.
Atty. Sergio Angeles
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as
it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with
an amendment that Atty. Sergio Angeles is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR for his having been found guilty of practicing
deceit in dealing with his client.”
The Court finds merit
in the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent’s act of deceit and malpractice
indubitably demonstrated his failure to live up to his sworn duties as a
lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly
stressed the importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a
lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his profession.[4] For it cannot be
denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.[5]
The Court is not
oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has
extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be an instance where the
victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles,
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR for having been found
guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client.
This Resolution
shall take effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines and appended to respondent’s
personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.