LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, A.C. No. 6317
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August 31, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime
in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with
Planters Development Bank, Buendia,
Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial
court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not
protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently
entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.[2]
Respondent denied the accusations
against him. He averred that the
P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the
recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC
Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna.
The complaint was referred[3] to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. On
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide
a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there
is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter’s
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
the persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a
lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer;
or
c) Where a
lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.
In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner opined
that:
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. To be made the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge
against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose
as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of
its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as of
the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. x x x.
In the instant scenario, despite the strong protestation of
respondent that the Php70,000.00 legal fees is purely and solely for the
recovery of the Php180,000.00 savings account of complainant subsequent acts
and events say otherwise, to wit:
1.) The Php70,000.00
legal fees for the recovery of a Php180,000.00 savings deposit is too high;
2.) Respondent
actively acted as complainant’s lawyer to effectuate the compromise agreement.
By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other
individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a
compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can
still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property respondent violated
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[4]
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:
WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated
violations to protect the public and the legal profession from his kind, it is
recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that
similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with.[5]
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the
investigating commissioner.[6]
We agree with the
findings of the IBP.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those
who show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications
for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard
of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.[7]
Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct[8] and are mandated to serve
their clients with competence and diligence.[9] They
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in
connection therewith shall render them liable.[10]
Respondent’s claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only
to the recovery of complainant’s savings deposit from Planter’s Development Bank
cannot be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainant’s counsel in the
drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the bank relative
to LRC Case No. B-2610. Respondent admitted that he explained the contents of
the agreement to complainant before the latter affixed her signature. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner observed
that the fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting
to P180,000.00 is unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable
fees.[11]
Respondent’s
disregard for his client’s interests is evident in the iniquitous stipulations
in the compromise agreement where the complainant conceded the validity of the
foreclosure of her property; that the redemption period has already expired
thus consolidating ownership in the bank, and that she releases her claims
against it.[12] As found by the Investigating Commissioner,
complainant agreed to these concessions because respondent misled her to
believe that she could still redeem the property after three years from the
foreclosure. The duty of a lawyer to safeguard his client’s
interests commences from his retainer until his discharge from the case or the
final disposition of the subject matter of litigation. Acceptance of money from a
client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives
rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of the legal
profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a
case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.[13]
Respondent’s admission[14]
that he divided the legal fees with two other people as a referral fee does not
release him from liability. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a
fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in
certain cases.[15]
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds:
1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyer’s
oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7)
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
In Santos v. Lazaro[16] and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,[17]
we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a
basic postulate in legal ethics. When a
lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence
in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client
and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society.
A lawyer should give adequate attention,
care and time to his client’s case. Once he agrees to
handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If
he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a
lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order
to sufficiently protect his clients’ interests. It is not enough that a
lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal
matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal
work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels
for his client’s cause.[18]
In view of the foregoing, we find that
suspension from the practice of law for six months is warranted. In addition,
he is directed to return to complainant the amount he received by way of legal
fees pursuant to existing jurisprudence.[19]
WHEREFORE,
Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is
found GUILTY of violating Rules
1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from
notice, and STERNLY WARNED
that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further
ordered to RETURN, within thirty (30) days from notice, the sum of
P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this Court
proof of his compliance within three (3) days therefrom.
Let copies of this
Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well
as on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-4.
[2]
Position Paper for Complainant, id. at 49.
[3]
[4]
[5] Id,
at 107.
[6]
[7] Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039,
[8]
Rule 1.01.
[9]
Canon 18.
[10]
Rule 18.03.
[11] Canon 20.
[12] Rollo, pp. 37-39.
[13]
[14] Rollo, p. 90.
[15]
Rule 9.02.
[16]
445 Phil. 1, 5 (2003).
[17]
A.C. No. 5655,
[18] Abiero v.
Juanino A.C. No. 5302, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 1,
10.
[19] Garcia v. Bala, supra note 7 at 95-96; Ferrer
v. Tebelin, A.C. No. 6590, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 207, 217; Macarilay v. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591, May
4, 2005, 458 SCRA 12, 26; Dalisay v.
Mauricio, supra at 515-516.