|
LETICIA
ADRIMISIN, Complainant, |
A.C. No. 2591
Present: |
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
CALLEJO,
SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
GARCIA, and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
ATTY. ROLANDO S. JAVIER,
Promulgated:
Respondent. September
8, 2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
On
The
Facts
Complainant
alleges that on P500.
Complainant contends that respondent received the money, issued a receipt[2] and promised that Monterde would be released from jail the
following day.
Complainant
also alleges that respondent failed to keep his promise in having Monterde
released. Complainant went to respondent’s office several
times but it seemed that
respondent was avoiding her. Monterde was
later released upon settlement of
the case with his employer. Complainant claims that she demanded for the return
of the P500 but
respondent failed to return this amount.
Respondent did
not file any comment or answer. He only appeared in the investigative hearings
conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”). Respondent, in his
testimony, claims he was not hired by complainant as legal counsel. Respondent
alleges complainant
only asked his help to secure a bail bond.[3] Respondent
admits he received P500
for the bail bond and called up Carlos Alberto (“Alberto”), an insurance agent.[4] Respondent claims he gave the P500 to Alberto. However, the amount was not sufficient to pay for
the bond.[5] Respondent denies that
he promised to have
Monterde released immediately.[6] Respondent claims he
advised complainant to get back her money directly from Alberto.[7]
Alberto, the
insurance agent, was presented during the hearing. He testified that on P940
and costs of documentary stamps, notarial fees and clearances at P279 for a total of P1,219.[9] Alberto claimed
he issued a genuine bond but it was not filed in court because complainant failed to pay
the balance.[10] He also testified that Pablo Adrimisin asked for the refund
of the P500 but the
amount could not be refunded due to expenses already
incurred and forfeiture of
the remainder in favor of Alberto’s office.[11]
The bail bond
which was marked as Exhibit “1” contained a stamped “Limitation of Liability”
clause. The clause states “Authorized limit of the bond shall not exceed P20,000 and
it is not valid for theft and robbery cases.”[12] The
portion “Not valid for theft and robbery cases” was deleted with a marking pen
but this cancellation was not signed or initialed. Alberto was asked why the
cancellation was unsigned. Alberto
replied that he had no knowledge on who made the stamp or the cancellation.[13] When
asked if it is the policy of Philippine Phoenix Surety not to post personal bail bond with respect to theft and
robbery cases, Alberto answered in the affirmative.[14]
Alberto also
clarified that he is not connected with
Philippine Phoenix Surety but he is
an employee of the House of Bonds, which is the general agent of the former.[15]
Mr. Alfredo
Brigoli (“Brigoli”), General Manager of the House of Bonds, was also presented
as one of respondent’s witnesses. Brigoli explained that he gives Alberto 5
sets of pre-signed bail bond forms.[16] However, in theft, robbery and drug cases, Alberto is
required to seek his approval before the bond is issued.
Brigoli
testified that it was Alberto’s daughter who called him up for approval to
issue a bond for qualified theft.[17] He informed Alberto’s daughter to bring the original bond
and its duplicate copies to his office in Intramuros for his signature, but the
same was not done.[18] Due to the lack of
his signature, Brigoli claimed that the
bond has not been approved. [19] Brigoli also testified that since
the bond was not forwarded to his office, the same was not recorded and the
payment was not remitted.
The
OSG’s Report and Recommendation
The OSG’s
Investigating Solicitor Antonio G. Castro heard the case and submitted a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”). The OSG recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for not less than one year. The Report reads:
The
charge of deceit and misrepresentation against respondent has been sufficiently
established. Respondent himself admits that he received from complainant the
sum of P500.00 for the bail bond of
complainant’s son-in-law Alfredo Monterde; that he failed to secure Monterde’s
release from jail; and that he did not return the sum of P500.00
to complainant (pp. 9-20, tsn,
x x
x x
Respondent’s defense
that he actually secured a bail bond for Monterde is a mere afterthought. Firstly,
complainant confided to him that she had no more money
except P500.00. He would not, therefore,
secure a bail bond with higher premium than P500.00.
Secondly, while he
declared that the records of Monterde’s case in the Regional Trial Court in
Caloocan City, Branch XXV, sala of Judge Oscar Herrera showed that the
recommended bail was P8,000.00 (pp. 8-9, tsn, March
14, 1985), the personal bail bond, marked as Exhibit “1”, which was allegedly
prepared, was for P9,400.00 (Exh. “1”, p. 7,
Folder of Exhs.).
Thirdly, respondent’s
witness, Alfredo Brigoli, the general manager of the AAF House of Bonds,
admitted that Exhibit “1” was not finally approved. On cross-examination, he
declared:
“Q Have you signed that as finally approved?
A No,
sir. When they called up asking for my signature on the deleted portion of the
bond, Mr. Alberto never came to my office.
Q In
other words that bond has not been finally approved.
A Not
finally approved because there is no signature yet.”
(p. 20,
tsn, Sept. 30, 1985).
As held by this
Honorable Court in Royong v. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859, 868-869 (1963), “The
respondent’s misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute
sufficient grounds for disbarment.” And in Quingwa v. Puno, 19 SCRA 439, 445
(1967), it also held that, “Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient
and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the
highest standards of morality.”
Specifically, for deceit
and misrepresentation, respondent may be suspended or disbarred (In re Paraiso,
41 Phil. 24, 25 [1920]).[20]
The
Court’s Ruling
The Court finds respondent liable
for violation of Canon 16 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (“Code”). The Code mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.[21] Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received from a client.[22] The Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him,[23] and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent himself admitted the receipt of P500 from complainant as
payment for the bail bond as shown in his testimony and in Exhibit “A”. By his
receipt of the amount, respondent agreed to take up complainant’s
cause and owed fidelity
to complainant and her cause, even if complainant never paid
any fee. Lawyering is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money,
is the primary consideration.[24]
Respondent
claims that on
There were also irregularities in
the personal bail bond. Firstly, it was issued on
Complainant demanded for
the return of the P500 but respondent kept on insisting that complainant seek refund from Alberto. Respondent has the duty to account for the money entrusted to him
by complainant. In Pariñas v. Paguinto,[25] we held that “a
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected from
the client. 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.”
In the present case, money for the payment of the
bond’s premium was not used for the purpose intended. Hence, respondent must return
the amount to complainant upon demand.
A lawyer’s failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to
the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation
of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the
legal profession and deserves punishment.[26]
This is not the first
time respondent is found to have unlawfully withheld and misappropriated money. In Igual v. Javier,[27] the Court held that respondent had unjustifiably refused to return
Igual’s money upon demand
and his absence of
integrity was highlighted by his “half-baked excuses, hoary pretenses and blatant lies in
his testimony before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline.” The Court suspended
Javier from the practice of law for a period of one month and ordered him to restitute the amount of P7,000 to Igual.
In that case, we
reminded respondent that he was “expected
to always live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility for the
relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.” [28]
We reiterate this reminder. Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross
violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession.[29] Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law.[30]
Wherefore, we SUSPEND Atty. Rolando S. Javier from the practice of law for six
months effective
upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to restitute complainant Leticia Adrimisin the Five
Hundred Pesos (P500) with legal interest computed from
Let
copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent’s personal record, and the Integrated Bar of the
So
Ordered.
Antonio
T. Carpio
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[2] Rollo, p. 5 and Exhibit “A,” exhibits for complainant and respondent, p. 1.
[3] TSN,
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Exhibit “1,” exhibits for complainant and respondent, p. 7.
[13] TSN, supra note 8, at 46-47.
[15]
[16] TSN,
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo, pp. 21-25.
[21] Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 16.
[22] Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 16.01.
[23] Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 18.03.
[24] Burbe v. Magulta, 432 Phil. 840, 850 (2002).
[25] A.C. No. 6297,
[26] R. Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics 242 (2002 ed.)
[27] 324 Phil. 698, 709 (1996).
[28]
[29] Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419, 424 (2001).
[30] Espiritu v. Ulep, A.C. No.
5808,