FIRST DIVISION
DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN A.C. No. 5542
NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, INC. and/or its
Officers, Members, namely:
MINERVA
A. GENATO, Present:
JULIETA
P. BENEDICTO,
PRAXEDES
A. MORENO,
PATRICIA
DE GUZMAN, PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,
PACITA G. MEQUERIO, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
HELEN RESUELLO, RIC DE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
GUZMAN, and ERLINDA CALLEJO, SR., and
RAMIREZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Complainants,
- versus -
ATTY. NAPOLEON A. Promulgated:
ESPIRITU,
Respondent.
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The instant disbarment case was filed
by the officers/members of the Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood
Association Inc., charging Atty. Napoleon A. Espiritu with “deceitful conduct,
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, and/or violation of oath of office.” The charges are contained in the Complaint-Affidavit[1]
dated
Complainants sought the services of
respondent sometime in November 1997 regarding a consolidated ejectment case where
they were being sued in their respective capacities as officers and members of
the association. The case, docketed as
Civil Case Nos. 153905-90, was pending before the Municipal Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 26. Complainants lost, however,
and respondent advised them to file a supersedeas bond to stay their eviction.[2] Complainants then entrusted the following
amounts to respondent as payment therefor:
a.) On P12,000.00 and P13,000.00 respectively
from Minerva Genato. (Annexes “B” and “B-1”)
b.) On P41,257.00 from Rico Ramirez. (Annex “C”)
c.) On P116,605.00, which are imparted under
the following circumstances:
c.1.) Ric De Guzman ---------- P14,010.00
c.2.) Patricia De Guzman ---------- P15,784.00
c.3.) Ben/Lita Benedicto ---------- P37,870.00
c.4.) Helena Resuello ---------- P11,363.00
c.5.) Praxedes P12,040.00
c.6.) Pacita Moquerio ---------- P25,538.00
which he receipted erroneously in the amount of P86,666.72, but
duly corrected by one of the members thereon. The aforesaid amount was accepted
by him in the name of Dayan as shown by the receipt he issued thereto marked as
Annex “D.”
d.) Again for the same reason, on P8,930.00
from us the following:
d.1.) Ric De Guzman ---------- P1,250.00
d.2.) Patricia De Guzman ---------- P1,125.00
d.3.) Ben/Lita Benedicto ---------- P3,130.00
d.4.) Helena Resuello ---------- P 625.00
d.5.) Praxedes P 935.00
d.6.) Pacita Moquerio ---------- P1,865.00
which he again receipted under Dayan as evidenced by hereto attached copy of the receipt marked as Annex “E.”
e.) On P3,370.00.
(Annex “F”)
f.) Also on P4,000.00. (Annex “H”)
g.) On P4,000.00. (Annex “H-1”)
h.) On P4,000.00. (Annex “I”).[3]
According to complainants, respondent
deposited only P48,000.00 before the Clerk of Court as evidenced by
receipts furnished by respondent himself.[4] Association President Minerva Genato then made
a verbal demand for respondent to return the remaining balance, upon which
respondent delivered a personal check for P141,904.00 in the name of
Atty. Leonardo Ocampo. The check bounced
for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, Atty. Ocampo sent a demand
letter[5] to
Genato to make good the payment of the check. Genato continued to make verbal demands and
later sent a letter[6] dated P206,497.00. An Information[8]
charging respondent with estafa was likewise filed before the RTC of Manila.
In
his Comment, [9]
respondent admitted that he deposited to the clerk of court the amount of P48,481.00
as “partial supersedeas bond.” In his
desire to help complainants, he talked to the counsel of plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. 153905-90. Respondent likewise admitted that he issued a postdated
check to cover the balance (P141,904.00), and that he was unable to fund
the same. He, however, made arrangements
with Atty. Ocampo and his clients for the payment of the subject check, and
requested the latter for complainants to stay in the subject property until
December 1999, or even beyond. He pointed out that it was upon his
representations that complainants were allowed to stay in the subject premises
up to the present, and that the said amount (P141,904.00 and not P206,497.00
as falsely claimed by complainants), was meant as payment for supersedeas bond
in Civil Case No. 153686-CV for the use and occupation of the complainants of
the subject property from January 1991 to December 1996. Respondent likewise disclosed that
complainants had lodged several complaints against him for estafa and/or theft
in connection with the amount covered by the postdated check which he issued in
favor of Atty. Ocampo, which, however, are all baseless. He insisted that complainants have no cause of
action against him, and that the instant administrative complaint must be
dismissed outright for the following reasons:
As stated earlier, the basis of this administrative case as well as the criminal complaints is the demand letter to Atty. Ocampo to make good the check issued by respondent, and in case of failure, Atty. Ocampo will insist on the issuance of the execution. It bears stressing, however, that because of the arrangement made by respondent with Atty. Ocampo, and as per their (Atty. Ocampo and the respondent) agreement, Atty. Ocampo no longer pursued the eviction f the complainants. UP TO THE PRESENT, complainants are still in the premises in question.
The complainants were never prejudiced by the bounced check and the demand letter sent by Atty. Ocampo to the complainants. On the contrary, they have benefited by the representations made by respondent to Atty. Ocampo. Moreover, respondent had made representations with the City Council of Manila for the expropriation of the premises in question, which is now under consideration by the said City Council.
Hence, complainants have no cause to complain. In fact, they should be grateful to the respondent because without his representations with Atty. Ocampo and the plaintiff in CIVIL CASE NO. 153686-CV, and with the City Council of Manila, complainants have long been evicted from the said premises. To sanction complainants’ administrative and criminal complaints against the respondent is a mockery of justice; respondent will be placed in an unjust situation where he has to answer severally a single offense, if at all. He will be made liable to Atty. Ocampo or to the plaintiff in CIVIL CASE NO. 153686-CV, to the herein complainants and to the Honorable Court.
Parenthetically, complainants have
absolutely no personality to file or institute this action against the
respondent. As it now clearly appears, the instant case is a persecution rather
than a prosecution, where the aim or purpose of the complainants is to exact or
extort money from the respondent. Complainants are well aware that they are not
entitled to the money they sought to collect from the respondent which served
as
basis of their malicious and perjurious criminal and administrative complaints.
The purpose of the money received by the respondent had greatly been served
through the issuance of the check by respondent to Atty. Ocampo and
respondent’s representations with Atty. Ocampo and his client-plaintiff NOT TO
EJECT complainants from the premises. Complainants have benefited too much from
the representations of respondent with Atty. Ocampo, UNTIL NOW.
To reiterate, it is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 153686-CV which has a cause of action against the respondent – and not or never the herein complainants.[10]
Complainants refuted these
allegations, insisting that the basis of the filing of the instant
administrative case, as well as the criminal charges for estafa against
respondent, is the misappropriation or conversion of the amounts which should
have been deposited with the court or with the lessor in order to cover the
required bond or arrears in rental over the property; the check was adduced in evidence
to prove the fact of misappropriation or conversion, as respondent issued the
same after he failed to deposit the complete amount entrusted to him by
complainants; and due to respondent’s unlawful acts, they were prejudiced and suffered
damages, thus:
b. The continuing failure of the respondent to transmit the subsequent amounts he further collected and received, is not further prejudicial to the enforcement and effective implementation of the rights of the complainants under the expropriation ordinance, enacted by the local government, because of the nonpayment of the backrental constituting the supersedeas bond, which up to the present, is being demanded by the lessor, as precondition for negotiating, for the expropriation compensation due to the lessor-owner.
c.
It must be further noted and stressed, there was no
representation at all made by respondent with the lessor through Atty. Ocampo;
nor, with the local government in the enactment and enforcement of said
ordinance. Contrary then, to the respondent’s contention, it was through the
coordinative efforts of the complainants through their President, which caused
the passage of said expropriation law. Further, the continuing stay of
complainants in the premises is but the due consequence of such enactment and
not through any representation on the part of respondent, who failed to protect
the interest of the complainant, as legal counsel of his clients, the herein
complainants, in gross dereliction of his duty as such.[11]
The case was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.[12] Investigating IBP Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan scheduled the case for hearing. Witnesses for complainants testified on
In her Report and Recommendation dated
The claim of respondent that the complainants [have] no cause of action
against him is without merit. He admitted receiving the funds from complainants
and that he deposited only P48,481.00 with the Clerk of Court as partial
supersedeas bond. The fact that Atty. Leonardo Ocampo counsel of the plaintiff
in the ejectment case accommodated the respondent with his personal check does
not relieve respondent from liability. On the contrary it is evident that the
arrangement was resorted to in order that respondent could extricate himself
from the situation he was in. By obtaining a loan from Atty. Ocampo in the form
of a check is a clear admission that the money entrusted to respondent by
complainants was misappropriated. Noted is the failure of respondent to make an
accounting of the funds entrusted to him and the absence of an explanation why
only a partial payment of the bond was made. The contention of respondent that
complainants were never prejudiced by the bouncing check likewise must fail.
Neither will the payment of the check and the funds entrusted to him “doubly
prejudice” respondent.[13]
On
RESOLVED to
ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex “A”; and finding the recommendation duly supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for obtaining a loan
from Atty. Ocampo in the form of a check is a clear admission that the money
entrusted to respondent by complainants was misappropriated, Atty. Napoleon A.
Espiritu is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for (1) year.
We agree with the foregoing
recommendation. It is clear that respondent misappropriated the money which his
clients, herein complainants, had entrusted to him for a specific purpose, and
such an act cannot be countenanced.
Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in
handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high
degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.[14] In Pariñas
v. Paguinto,[15] the
Court had the occasion to state that “money entrusted to a lawyer for a
specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the
case must immediately be returned to the client on demand.”[16]
Indeed, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his or her client’s
money.[17]
We
note that respondent failed to appear before the IBP Investigating Commissioner
to explain his actions, much less present his defense. In Rangwani v. Diño,[18] we
ruled that it is not enough for a member
of the bar to deny the charges:
Quite conspicuously, despite the opportunities accorded to respondent to refute the charges against him, he failed to do so or even offer a valid explanation. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence to meet the charges against him. His nonchalance does not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of respect towards the public officers who were assigned to investigate the cases. On the contrary, respondent’s comments only markedly admitted complainant’s accusations. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him. He must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. These, respondent miserably failed to do.[19]
The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and
advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and
confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed,
the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal
profession as a whole is eroded. To this
end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the
highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of
their profession.[20] The nature of the office of a lawyer requires
that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is
essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession.[21] Law is a noble profession, and the privilege
to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent
intellectually, academically, and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the
legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity
in a manner beyond reproach.[22]
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension
of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore. – A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to the practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
However, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of a lawyer as an officer of the
Court and member of the bar. It should
never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
accomplish the end desired.[23] In this case, the Court finds that one-year
suspension from the practice of law will suffice as penalty against respondent.
WHEREFORE,
Atty. Napoleon A. Espiritu is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is penalized with SUSPENSION from the practice of law for One (1) Year effective
immediately. Respondent is DIRECTED to return the funds entrusted
to him by complainants, and to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this
Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be
furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s
personal records; the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
CONSUELO
YNARES-
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 6-8.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Reply
to Comment dated
[12] Rollo, p. 14.
[13] Report and Recommendation, p. 5.
[14] Navarro v. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520,
527 (1998).
[15] A.C.
No. 6297,
[16]
[17] See Quilban v. Robinol, A.C. No. 2144,
[18] A.C.
No. 5454,
[19]
[20]
The Canons of Judicial Ethics also provides:
The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
Money of the client or collected for the
client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should
be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances
[21] Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7, 14-15
(1998).
[22] Resurreccion v. Sayson, A.M. No. 1037,
[23] P7,000.00, allegedly paid as acceptance fee for a matter on which
respondent never performed any work.