AVITO
YU, ADM. CASE NO. 5691
Complainant,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus - CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION,
JJ.
ATTY.
CESAR R. TAJANLANGIT,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
March 13, 2009
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This
is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Avito Yu
against respondent Atty. Cesar R. Tajanlangit for violation of Rules 18.03
and 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code).[1]
Complainant
alleged that he had engaged the services of respondent as defense counsel in
Criminal Case No. 96-150393 that resulted in a judgment of conviction against
him and a sentence of thirty (30) years of imprisonment.[2] After the motion for reconsideration and/or
new trial was denied by the trial court, instead of filing an appeal,
respondent filed a petition for certiorari[3]
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the trial court’s part in denying the motion. This petition was subsequently
denied by the Court of Appeals. Due to respondent’s alleged error in the choice
of remedy, the period to appeal lapsed and complainant was made to suffer imprisonment
resulting from his conviction. In
depriving complainant of his right to an appeal, respondent allegedly violated
Rule 18.03[4] of
the Code. Moreover, complainant averred that respondent had violated Rule 16.01[5] of
the Code for failing to return the bailbond to him in the amount P195,000.00
after having withdrawn the same.[6]
Further, complainant stated that respondent had failed to pay the telephone
bill he had incurred during his stay at complainant’s house.[7]
Complainant
prayed that respondent be disbarred and be ordered to pay him the amount of P211,106.97
plus interest.[8]
For
his part, respondent clarified that his legal services were engaged only after
the denial of the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial and the
supplement thereto. His legal services were limited to filing the petition for
certiorari. Complainant, at the time, had already been convicted by the trial
court. Respondent also explained that he had discussed with complainant the
merits of filing a petition for certiorari and that complainant gave his
conformity to the filing of the same.[9]
Moreover,
respondent averred that complainant had authorized and instructed him to
withdraw the cash bond in order to apply the amount as payment for legal fees
and reimbursement for expenses. With regard to the unpaid telephone bill,
respondent alleged that he was not presented a copy of the billing statement
despite his previous requests. He also contended that he had been allowed to
use the telephone to facilitate coordination between him and complainant as he
was then residing in
The Court referred the matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Resolution of
In his Report and Recommendation dated
On
the charge of violating Rule 18.03
x x x
x x x Considering that Respondent was only hired after the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or
New Trial, Complainant is silent whether an appeal was still available to him
at that time. Complainant failed to state the material dates when his first
lawyer, Atty. Lacsamana received the Decision dated
While all of the lawyers who protected Complainant’s cause were of the view that there was a need to present additional evidence and/or hold trial anew, it is obvious that Complainant singled out Respondent and blamed him solely for his conviction.
At any rate, Respondent exhaustively explained his legal basis for
elevating the Order dated
x x x
On
the charge of violating Rule 16.01
x x x In the absence of evidence controverting Respondent’s claim that
a verbal agreement exists or an amount different from what was agreed upon, it
is believable that indeed, Complainant knew of the fee arrangement entered into
with the Respondent, through Ms. Javier, who acted in his behalf. It is also
indisputable that Complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney dated
x x x
While Respondent is entitled to be paid for the legal services he rendered and expenses he incurred, it is still Respondent’s obligation to render an accounting of the money received.
x x x
Further, Respondent did not substantiate his claim that he had paid for or tendered payment for the unpaid telephone bill. While he contends that he previously asked for the billing statement, it was allegedly not shown to him. However, there is no showing that from the time the instant disbarment complaint was filed, which in itself constitutes the demand for its payment, any payment (was) made by the Respondent.[12]
Accordingly,
the IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be directed to: (1) render an
accounting of the money he had received and to itemize the nature of the legal
services he had rendered, inclusive of the expenses he had incurred in
compliance with Rule 16.01 of the Code; and (2) to pay the amount of the unpaid
telephone bill. It was further recommended that respondent be sternly warned
that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.[13]
On
The
Court is in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Records
show that respondent did not serve as complainant’s lawyer at the inception of
or during the trial of Criminal Case No. 96-150393 which resulted to the
conviction of the latter. In fact, respondent was only engaged as counsel after
the withdrawal of appearance of complainant’s lawyers and denial of the Motion
for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and the supplement thereto. At that time, complainant
had already been incarcerated. Significantly, complainant made no mention of
the availability of the remedy of appeal at the time of respondent’s
employment.
More
importantly, the Court finds adequate respondent’s justification for filing the
petition for certiorari instead of an appeal. Indeed, there is no showing that
respondent was negligent in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by
complainant.
The Court also agrees with the IBP that it was not at all
improper for respondent to have withdrawn the cash bonds as there was evidence
showing that complainant and respondent had entered into a special fee
arrangement. But, however justified respondent was in applying the cash bonds
to the payment of his services and reimbursement of the expenses he had incurred, the Court
agrees with
the IBP that he is not
excused from rendering an accounting of the same. In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,[15] the Court held that “(t)he highly
fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client requires that the
lawyer should promptly account for all the funds received from, or held by him
for, the client.”[16]
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on the money in his
hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the obligation to make
a prompt accounting.[17]
Finally, the Court concurs with the IBP that while it is true
that respondent was not presented a copy of the unpaid telephone bill, the
instant complaint itself constitutes the demand for its payment. Considering
that there is no manifestation to the effect that the same has been paid,
respondent should accordingly be required to settle it.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Cesar R. Tajanlangit is ordered to
render, within thirty (30) days from notice of this Resolution, an accounting
of all monies he received from complainant and to itemize the nature of the
legal services he had rendered, inclusive of the expenses he had incurred, in
compliance with Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent is further ADMONISHED that commission of the same
or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
[4]Rule 18.03: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
[5]Rule 16.01: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
[10]