FIRST DIVISION LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO, Complainant, ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO, Respondent. A.C. No.

6317 Promulgated:

August 31, 2006 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: n !e"ruar# 13, 200$, an administrati%e &omplaint 'as (iled "# &omplainant )u*%iminda C. )i+au&o against respondent Att#. Rogelio P. ,errado (or gross mis&ondu&t, malpra&ti&e and &ondu&t un"e&oming o( an o((i&er o( t-e &ourt '-en -e negle&ted a legal matter entrusted to -im despite re&eipt o( pa#ment representing attorne#.s (ees. A&&ording to t-e &omplainant, s-e engaged t-e ser%i&es o( respondent sometime in /anuar# 2001 (or P70,000.00 to assist in re&o%ering -er deposit 'it- Planters 0e%elopment 1an2, 1uendia, 3a2ati "ran&- in t-e amount o( P140,000.00 and t-e release o( -er (ore&losed -ouse and lot lo&ated in Calam"a, )aguna. ,-e propert# identi(ied as )ot No. $04-C-2 and registered as ,C, No. ,-$02115 in t-e name o( said "an2 is t-e su"+e&t o( a petition (or t-e issuan&e o( a 'rit o( possession t-en pending "e(ore t-e Regional ,rial Court o( 1inan, )aguna, 1ran&- 2$ do&2eted as )RC Case No. 1-2610. Complainant alleged t-at respondent (ailed to appear "e(ore t-e trial &ourt in t-e -earing (or t-e issuan&e o( t-e 6rit o( Possession and did not prote&t -er interests in t-e Compromise Agreement '-i&- s-e su"se7uentl# entered into to end )RC Case No. 1-2610. Respondent denied t-e a&&usations against -im. 8e a%erred t-at t-e P70,000.00 -e re&ei%ed (rom &omplainant 'as pa#ment (or legal ser%i&es (or t-e re&o%er# o( t-e deposit 'it- Planters 0e%elopment 1an2 and did not in&lude )RC Case No. 1-2610 pending "e(ore t-e Regional ,rial Court o( 1i9an, )aguna. ,-e &omplaint 'as re(erred to t-e :ntegrated 1ar o( t-e P-ilippines ;:1P< (or in%estigation, report and re&ommendation. n =eptem"er 21, 200>, t-e :n%estigating Commissioner su"mitted -is report (inding respondent guilt# o( %iolating Rules 1.01 and 5.02 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit# '-i&- pro%ide: Rule 1.01 ? A la'#er s-all not engage in unla'(ul, dis-onest, immoral or de&eit(ul &ondu&t. Rule 5.02 ? A la'#er s-all not di%ide or stipulate to di%ide a (ee (or legal ser%i&es 'it- persons not li&ensed to pra&ti&e la', ex&ept: a< 6-ere t-ere is a pre-existing agreement 'it- a partner or asso&iate t-at, upon t-e latter.s deat-, mone# s-all "e paid o%er a reasona"le period o( time to -is estate or to t-e persons spe&i(ied in t-e agreement@ or "< or 6-ere a la'#er underta2es to &omplete un(inis-ed legal "usiness o( a de&eased la'#er@

&< 6-ere a la'#er or la' (irm in&ludes non-la'#er emplo#ees in a retirement plan, e%en i( t-e plan is "ased in '-ole or in part, on a pro(it-s-aring arrangement.

:n (inding t-e respondent guilt# o( %iolating Rules 1.01 and 5.02 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit#, t-e :n%estigating Commissioner opined t-at: :n dis"arment pro&eedings, t-e "urden o( proo( rests upon t-e &omplainant. ,o "e made t-e suspension or dis"arment o( a la'#er, t-e &-arge against -im must "e esta"lis-ed "# &on%in&ing proo(. ,-e re&ord must dis&lose as (ree (rom dou"t a &ase '-i&- &ompels t-e exer&ise "# t-e =upreme Court o( its dis&iplinar# po'ers. ,-e du"ious &-ara&ter o( t-e a&t done as 'ell as o( t-e moti%ation t-ereo( must "e &learl# demonstrated. x x x. :n t-e instant s&enario, despite t-e strong protestation o( respondent t-at t-e P-p70,000.00 legal (ees is purel# and solel# (or t-e re&o%er# o( t-e P-p140,000.00 sa%ings a&&ount o( &omplainant su"se7uent a&ts and e%ents sa# ot-er'ise, to 'it: 1.< ,-e P-p70,000.00 legal (ees (or t-e re&o%er# o( a P-p140,000.00 sa%ings deposit is too -ig-@ 2.< Respondent a&ti%el# a&ted as &omplainant.s la'#er to e((e&tuate t-e &ompromise agreement. 1# openl# admitting -e di%ided t-e P-p70,000.00 to ot-er indi%iduals as &ommissionAre(erral (ees respondent %iolated Rule 5.02, Canon 5 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit# '-i&pro%ides t-at a la'#er s-all not di%ide or stipulate to di%ide a (ee (or legal ser%i&es 'it- persons not li&ensed to pra&ti&e la'. 6orst, "# luring &omplainant to parti&ipate in a &ompromise agreement 'it- a (alse and misleading assuran&e t-at &omplainant &an still re&o%er a(ter ,-ree ;3< #ears -er (ore&losed propert# respondent %iolated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit# '-i&- sa#s a la'#er s-all not engage in unla'(ul, dis-onest, immoral or de&eit(ul &ondu&t. ,-e :n%estigating Commissioner t-us re&ommended: 68BRB! RB, (inding respondent responsi"le (or a(orestated %iolations to prote&t t-e pu"li& and t-e legal pro(ession (rom -is 2ind, it is re&ommended t-at -e "e suspended (or =ix ;6< mont-s 'it- a stern 'arning t-at similar a&ts in t-e (uture 'ill "e se%erel# dealt 'it-. ,-e :1P 1oard o( Co%ernors adopted t-e re&ommendation o( t-e in%estigating &ommissioner. 6e agree 'it- t-e (indings o( t-e :1P. ,-e pra&ti&e o( la' is a pri%ilege "esto'ed on t-ose '-o s-o' t-at t-e# possessed and &ontinue to possess t-e legal 7uali(i&ations (or it. :ndeed, la'#ers are expe&ted to maintain at all times a -ig- standard o( legal pro(i&ien&# and moralit#, in&luding -onest#, integrit# and (air dealing. ,-e# must per(orm t-eir (our(old dut# to so&iet#, t-e legal pro(ession, t-e &ourts and t-eir &lients, in a&&ordan&e 'it- t-e %alues and norms o( t-e legal pro(ession as em"odied in t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit#. )a'#ers are pro-i"ited (rom engaging in unla'(ul, dis-onest, immoral or de&eit(ul &ondu&t and are mandated to ser%e t-eir &lients 'it- &ompeten&e and diligen&e. ,-e# s-all not negle&t a legal matter entrusted to t-em, and t-is negligen&e in &onne&tion t-ere'it- s-all render t-em lia"le. Respondent.s &laim t-at t-e attorne#.s (ee pertains onl# to t-e re&o%er# o( &omplainant.s sa%ings deposit (rom Planter.s 0e%elopment 1an2 &annot "e sustained. Re&ords s-o' t-at -e a&ted as &omplainant.s &ounsel in t-e dra(ting o( t-e &ompromise agreement "et'een t-e latter and t-e "an2 relati%e to )RC Case No. 1-2610. Respondent admitted t-at -e explained t-e &ontents o( t-e agreement to &omplainant "e(ore t-e latter a((ixed -er signature. 3oreo%er, t-e :n%estigating Commissioner o"ser%ed t-at t-e (ee o( P70,000.00 (or legal assistan&e in t-e re&o%er# o( t-e deposit amounting to P140,000.00 is unreasona"le. A la'#er s-all &-arge onl# (air and reasona"le (ees. Respondent.s disregard (or -is &lient.s interests is e%ident in t-e ini7uitous stipulations in t-e &ompromise agreement '-ere t-e &omplainant &on&eded t-e %alidit# o( t-e (ore&losure o( -er propert#@ t-at t-e redemption period -as alread# expired t-us &onsolidating o'ners-ip in t-e "an2, and t-at s-e releases -er &laims against it. As (ound "# t-e :n%estigating Commissioner,

&omplainant agreed to t-ese &on&essions "e&ause respondent misled -er to "elie%e t-at s-e &ould still redeem t-e propert# a(ter t-ree #ears (rom t-e (ore&losure. ,-e dut# o( a la'#er to sa(eguard -is &lient.s interests &ommen&es (rom -is retainer until -is dis&-arge (rom t-e &ase or t-e (inal disposition o( t-e su"+e&t matter o( litigation. A&&eptan&e o( mone# (rom a &lient esta"lis-es an attorne#-&lient relations-ip and gi%es rise to t-e dut# o( (idelit# to t-e &lient.s &ause. ,-e &anons o( t-e legal pro(ession re7uire t-at on&e an attorne# agrees to -andle a &ase, -e s-ould underta2e t-e tas2 'it- *eal, &are and utmost de%otion. Respondent.s admission t-at -e di%ided t-e legal (ees 'it- t'o ot-er people as a re(erral (ee does not release -im (rom lia"ilit#. A la'#er s-all not di%ide or stipulate to di%ide a (ee (or legal ser%i&es 'it- persons not li&ensed to pra&ti&e la', ex&ept in &ertain &ases. Dnder =e&tion 27, Rule 134 o( t-e Rules o( Court, a mem"er o( t-e 1ar ma# "e dis"arred or suspended on t-e (ollo'ing grounds: 1< de&eit@ 2< malpra&ti&e, or ot-er gross mis&ondu&t in o((i&e@ 3< grossl# immoral &ondu&t@ $< &on%i&tion o( a &rime in%ol%ing moral turpitude@ >< %iolation o( t-e la'#er.s oat-@ 6< 'ill(ul diso"edien&e to an# la'(ul order o( a superior &ourt@ and 7< 'ill(ull# appearing as an attorne# (or a part# 'it-out aut-orit#. :n Santos v. Lazaro and Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 'e -eld t-at Rule 14.03 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit# is a "asi& postulate in legal et-i&s. 6-en a la'#er ta2es a &lient.s &ause, -e &o%enants t-at -e 'ill exer&ise due diligen&e in prote&ting -is rig-ts. ,-e (ailure to exer&ise t-at degree o( %igilan&e and attention ma2es su&- la'#er un'ort-# o( t-e trust reposed in -im "# -is &lient and ma2es -im ans'era"le not +ust to -is &lient "ut also to t-e legal pro(ession, t-e &ourts and so&iet#. A la'#er s-ould gi%e ade7uate attention, &are and time to -is &lient.s &ase. n&e -e agrees to -andle a &ase, -e s-ould underta2e t-e tas2 'it- dedi&ation and &are. :( -e (ails in t-is dut#, -e is not true to -is oat- as a la'#er. ,-us, a la'#er s-ould a&&ept onl# as mu&- &ases as -e &an e((i&ientl# -andle in order to su((i&ientl# prote&t -is &lients. interests. :t is not enoug- t-at a la'#er possesses t-e 7uali(i&ation to -andle t-e legal matter@ -e must also gi%e ade7uate attention to -is legal 'or2. Dtmost (idelit# is demanded on&e &ounsel agrees to ta2e t-e &udgels (or -is &lient.s &ause. :n %ie' o( t-e (oregoing, 'e (ind t-at suspension (rom t-e pra&ti&e o( la' (or six mont-s is 'arranted. :n addition, -e is dire&ted to return to &omplainant t-e amount -e re&ei%ed "# 'a# o( legal (ees pursuant to existing +urispruden&e. WHEREFORE, Att#. Rogelio P. ,errado is (ound GUILTY o( %iolating Rules 1.01, 5.02, 14.02 and 20.01 o( t-e Code o( Pro(essional Responsi"ilit#. 8e is SUSPENDED (rom t-e pra&ti&e o( la' (or six (6) months e((e&ti%e (rom noti&e, and STERNLY WARNED t-at an# similar in(ra&tion 'ill "e dealt 'it- more se%erel#. 8e is (urt-er ordered to RETURN, 'it-in t-irt# ;30< da#s (rom noti&e, t-e sum o( P70,000.00 to &omplainant )u*%iminda C. )i+au&o and to su"mit to t-is Court proo( o( -is &omplian&e 'it-in t-ree ;3< da#s t-ere(rom. )et &opies o( t-is 0e&ision "e entered in t-e re&ord o( respondent and ser%ed on t-e :1P, as 'ell as on t-e Court Administrator '-o s-all &ir&ulate it to all &ourts (or t-eir in(ormation and guidan&e. SO ORDERED. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Asso&iate /usti&e WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN C-ie( /usti&e C-airperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Asso&iate /usti&e

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Asso&iate /usti&e

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Asso&iate /usti&e Rollo, pp. 2-$. Position Paper (or Complainant, id. at $5. Id. at $2. Id. at 106-107. Id, at 107. Id. at 102. Garcia v. ala, A.C. No. >035, No%em"er 2>, 200>, $76 =CRA 4>, 51. Rule 1.01. Canon 14. Rule 14.03. Canon 20. Rollo, pp. 37-35. !miliano "ourt #o$nhous%s &om%o$n%rs 'ssociation v. Dion%da, A.C. No. >162, 3ar&- 20, 2003, 355 =CRA 256, 303. Rollo, p. 50. Rule 5.02. $$> P-il. 1, > ;2003<. A.C. No. >6>>, April 22, 200>, $>6 =CRA >04, >1$. '(i%ro v. Juanino A.C. No. >302, !e"ruar# 14, 200>, $>2 =CRA 1, 10. Garcia v. ala, su)ra note 7 at 5>-56@ *%rr%r v. #%(%lin, A.C. No. 6>50, /une 27, 200>, $61 =CRA 207, 217@ Macarilay v. S%ri+a, A.C. No. 6>51, 3a# $, 200>, $>4 =CRA 12, 26@ Dalisay v. Mauricio, su)ra at >1>->16.