ANDREA BALCE CELAJE,

Complainant,

A.C. No. 7418

Members:

- versus -

PUNO, C.J.
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO-MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, Jr.,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
October 9, 2007

ATTY. SANTIAGO C. SORIANO,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before this Court is a disbarment case filed against Atty. Santiago C. Soriano (respondent)
for gross misconduct.
In the Complaint dated June 1, 2005 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), Andrea Balce Celaje (complainant) alleged that respondent asked for money to be put up
as an injunction bond, which complainant found out later, however, to be unnecessary as the
application for the writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent also asked for money on
several occasions allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case, Judge
Milagros Quijano, of the Regional Trial Court, Iriga City,Branch 36. When complainant
approached Judge Quijano and asked whether what respondent was saying was true,
Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations and advised her to file an administrative case
against respondent.[1]

In his Answer, respondent denied the charges against him and averred that the same were
merely concocted by complainant to destroy his character. He also contended that it was
complainant who boasted that she is a professional fixer in administrative agencies as well as in
the judiciary; and that complainant promised to pay him large amounts of attorneys fees which
complainant however did not keep.[2]
Both parties appeared in the Mandatory Conference and Hearing on January 18,
2006. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision.[3]
In the Report and Recommendation dated January 24, 2006, IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct in his
relations with his client and recommended that respondent be suspended for three years from
the practice of law.[4]
In the Report, Commissioner Funa found that:
During the hearing conducted, Complainant alleged that she has remitted to
Respondent, on various dates, amounts of money totaling to more or
less P270,000.00.
According to Complainant the amounts given in several instances were all
undocumented and not acknowledged in writing.
However, for the alleged amount of P14,000.00 intended for an injunction
bond, some documents in writing were made.
xxxx
While the amounts remitted by Complainant to Respondent were never
acknowledged in writing and were not documented, due credence must be given to
Complainants allegations especially over the amount of P14,800.00 intended for the
injunction. Indeed, there is no ill-motive at all on the part of Complainant to
fabricate charges against Respondent. Unfortunately, none of the P270,000.00 given
by Complainant to Respondent was ever documented and therefore accuracy of the
amounts could not be established and substantiated.
What has been documented only pertains to the unpaid P5,800.00 intended for
the injunction bond. However, it has been established that indeed an accumulated
amount of P9,000.00has been remitted by Respondent to Valentina Ramos and only
the unpaid P5,800.00 remains unaccounted for by the Respondent.
During the hearing conducted, Complainant reiterated her accusations against
the Respondent and expressed that she has been aggrieved and misled by Respondent.

According to Complainant, this was made possible because she was not aware of or
knowledgeable on legal matters and practices. Respondent has only offered denials
to the charges. However, thecircumstances gives credibility to herein Complainant in
the absence of any evil motive on her part.
Accordingly, Respondent is clearly guilty of misappropriating his clients
funds in the amount of P5,800.00. While other amounts may have been
misappropriated, Complainant alleges P270,000.00, the exactness of the amounts
could not be established.
Respondent is also guilty of deceiving his client and abusing his clients
confidence in requesting for several amounts of money on the pretense that he
had to spend for and pay the trial judge.
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to immediately deliver the unaccounted for
amount of Five Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P5,800.00) to Complainant,
submitting a Compliance Report thereon. [5]

On September 8, 2006, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution thus:
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 fully supported by the evidence on record and
the applicable laws and rules, and considering that Respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct for misappropriating his clients funds, Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and likewise Ordered
to immediately deliver that unaccounted amount of P5,800.00 to complainant.[6]

The IBP transmitted the Notice of Resolution issued by the IBP Board of Governors as
well as the records of the case, pursuant to Rule 139-B. [7] Then in compliance with the Courts
Resolution dated February 20, 2007, the IBP through Director for Discipline
Rogelio Vinluan informed the Court that per records of the IBP, no Motion for Reconsideration
was filed by either party.
The Court agrees with the IBP Resolution.
The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), particularly Canon 16 thereof, mandates
that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. He shall account for all money or property collected or received from his
client[8] and shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.[9]

As found by Commissioner Funa, it was established that respondent could not account
for P5,800.00 which was part of the sum given by complainant to him for the purpose of filing
an injunctive bond. Respondent admitted having received from complainant P17,800.00 on
April 19, 2002 for the preliminary injunction [10] and admitted to having a balance of P9,000.00
in his promissory note to the Manila Insurance Co., Inc. dated April 23, 2002, which was
reduced to P5,800.00 by reason of an additional payment ofP4,000.00,[11] leaving an amount
of P5,800.00 unaccounted for. The affidavit of the insurance agent, Valentina Ramos,
dated December 8, 2005 also states that even up to said date, respondent had not yet paid the
balance of P5,800.00.[12]
Respondents failure to return the money to complainant upon demand gave rise to the
presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of
the trust reposed in him by his client. [13] It is a gross violation of general morality and of
professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession which deserves
punishment.[14]
As the Court has pronounced, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended
purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.[15]
The Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of
members of the Bar who are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Indeed,
membership in the legal profession is a privilege. [16] The attorney-client relationship is highly
fiduciary in nature. As such, it requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity and disinterestedness
on the part of the lawyer.[17]
In Small v. Banares[18] the respondent was suspended for two years for violating Canon 16
of the CPR, particularly for failing to file a case for which the amount ofP80,000.00 was given
him by his client, and for failing to return the said amount upon demand. Considering that
similar circumstances are attendant in this case, the Court finds the Resolution of the IBP
imposing on respondent a two-year suspension to be in order.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found GUILTY of violating
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Respondent is further ordered to restitute to his clients through Andrea Balce Celaje,
within 30 days from notice, the amount of P5,800.00. Respondent is directed to submit to the
Court proof of payment within fifteen days from payment of the full amount.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant for their information and guidance,
and let it be entered in respondents record in this Court.
SO ORDERED.

REYNARIA
BARCENAS,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 8159

(formerly CBD 051452)

Present:

PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO JR.,
- versus -

NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
MENDOZA and
PEREZ, JJ.

ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO,

Respondent.

Promulgated:
April 23, 2010

x-------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a Complaint [1] dated May 17, 2005 for disciplinary action against respondent
Atty. Anorlito A. Alvero filed by Reynaria Barcenas with the Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesCommission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1452, now
Administrative Case (A.C.) No. 8159.

The facts as culled from the records are as follows:

On May 7, 2004, Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio (San Antonio),
entrusted to Atty. Alvero the amount of P300,000.00, which the latter was supposed to give to a
certain Amanda Gasta to redeem the rights of his deceased father as tenant of a ricefield located
in Barangay San Benito, Victoria, Laguna. The receipt of the money was evidenced by an
acknowledgment receipt[2] dated May 7, 2004. In the said receipt, Atty. Alvero said that he
would deposit the money in court because Amanda Gasta refused to accept the same.[3]

Later, Barcenas found out that Atty. Alvero was losing a lot of money in cockfights. To
check if the money they gave Atty. Alvero was still intact, Barcenas pretended to borrow
P80,000.00 from the P300,000.00 and promised to return the amount when needed or as soon as
the case was set for hearing. However, Atty. Alvero allegedly replied, Akala nyo ba ay madali
kunin ang pera pag nasa korte na? Subsequently, Barcenas discovered that Atty. Alvero did
not deposit the money in court, but instead converted and used the same for his personal needs.

In his letters dated August 18, 2004 [4] and August 25, 2004,[5] Atty. Atty. Alvero admitted
the receipt of the P300,000.00 and promised to return the money. The pertinent portions of said
letters are quoted as follows:

Dahil sa kagustuhan ng iyong amo na maibalik ko ang perang tinanggap ko

sa iyo, lumakad ako agad at pilit kong kinukuha kahit iyon man lang na hiniram sa
akin naP80,000.00 pero hindi karakapraka ang lumikom ng gayong halaga. Pero
tiniyak sa akin na sa Martes, ika-24 ng buwan ay ibibigay sa akin.
Bukas ay tutungo ako sa amin upang lumikom pa ng karagdagang halaga
upang maisauli ko ang buong P300,000.00. Nakikiusap ako sa iyo dahil sa ikaw
ang nagbigay sa akin ng pera na bigyan mo ako ng kaunting panahon upang
malikom ko ang pera na ipinagkatiwala mo sa akin, hanggang ika-25 ng Agosto,
2004. x x x[6]

Maya-mayang alas nuwebe (9:00) titingnan ang lupang aking ipinagbibili ng

Dalawang Milyon. Gustong-gusto ng bibili gusto lang makita ang lupa dahil malayo,
nasa Cavinti. Kung ok na sa bibili pinakamatagal na ang Friday ang bayaran.

Iyong aking sinisingil na isang P344,000.00 at isang P258,000.00 na utang ng

taga-Liliw ay darating sa akin ngayong umaga bago mag alas otso. Kung maydala ng
pambayad kahit magkano ay ibibigay ko sa iyo ngayong hapon.

xxxx

Lahat ng pagkakaperahan ko ay aking ginagawa, pati anak ko ay tinawagan

ko na. Pakihintay muna lang ng kauting panahon pa, hindi matatapos ang
linggong ito, tapos ang problema ko sa iyo. Pasensiya ka na.[7]

However, as of the filing of the instant complaint, despite repeated demands, Atty. Alvero
failed to return the same. Thus, Barcenas prayed that Atty. Alvero be disbarred for being a
disgrace to the legal profession.

On March 30, 2005, the IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Alvero to submit his Answer to the
complaint.[8]

In compliance, in his Answer[9] dated April 18, 2005, Atty. Alvero claimed that he did not
know Barcenas prior to the filing of the instant complaint nor did he know thatSan Antonio was
an employee of Barcenas. He alleged that he came to know Barcenas only when the latter went
to him to borrow P60,000.00 from the amount entrusted to Rodolfo San Antonio who
entrusted to respondent. At that time, Atty. Alvero claimed that San Antonio was reluctant to
grant the request because it might jeopardize the main and principal cause of action of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) case. Atty. Alvero, however,
admitted that he received an amount ofP300,000.00 from San Antonio, though he claimed that
said money was the principal cause of action in the reconveyance action.[10]

Atty. Alvero stressed that there was no lawyer-client relationship between him and
Barcenas. He, however, insisted that the lawyer-client relationship between him and San
Antonio still subsisted as his service was never severed by the latter. He further emphasized that
he had not breached the trust of his client, since he had, in fact, manifested his willingness to
return the said amount as long as his lawyer-client relationship with San Antonio subsisted.
Finally, Atty. Alvero prayed that the instant complaint be dismissed.

On June 20, 2005, the IBP-CBD notified the parties to appear for the mandatory
conference.[11]

Meanwhile, in a separate Affidavit[12] dated September 19, 2005, San Antonio narrated
that he indeed sought Atty. Alveros professional services concerning an agricultural land
dispute. He claimed that Atty. Alvero made him believe that he needed to provide an amount
of P300,000.00 in order to file his complaint, as the same would be deposited in court. San
Antonio quoted Atty. Alvero as saying: Hindi pwedeng hindi kasabay ang pera sa pagpa-file

ng papel dahil tubusan yan, kung sakaling ipatubos ay nasa korte na ang pera. Believing that
it was the truth, San Antonio was forced to borrow money from Barcenas in the amount
of P300,000.00. Subsequently, San Antoniogave the said amount to Atty. Alvero, in addition to
the professional fees, as shown by an acknowledgment receipt.[13]

San Antonio further corroborated Barcenas allegation that they tried to

borrow P80,000.00 from the P300,000.00 they gave to Atty. Alvero after they found out that the
latter lost a big amount of money in cockfighting. He reiterated that Atty. Alvero declined and
stated, Akala nyo ba ay madali kunin ang pera pag nasa korte na. Later on, they found out
that Atty. Atty. Alvero lied to them since the money was never deposited in court but was
instead used for his personal needs. For several times, Atty. Alvero promised to return the
money to them, but consistently failed to do so. San Antonio submitted Atty. Atty. Alveros
letters dated August 18, 2004[14] and August 25, 2004[15] showing the latters promises to return
the amount of P300,000.00.

During the mandatory conference, Atty. Alvero failed to attend despite notice. Thus, he
was deemed to have waived his right to participate in the mandatory conference.

In its Report and Recommendation dated May 21, 2008, the IBP-CBD recommended that
Atty. Alvero be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for gross
misconduct. Atty. Alvero was, likewise, ordered to immediately account for and return the
amount of P300,000.00 to Barcenas and/or Rodolfo San Antonio. The pertinent portion thereof
reads:

The record does not show and no evidence was presented by respondent to
prove that the amount of P300,000 which was entrusted to him was already
returned to complainant or Rodolfo San Antonio, by way of justifying his non-return
of the money, respondent claims in his Answer that the P300,000 was the source of
the principal cause of action of the petitioner, Rodolfo San Antonio, in the above-cited
DARAB Case No. R-0403-0011-04 as shown by a copy of the Amended Petition,
copy of which is hereto attached as Annex 1 and made an integral part hereof.

A review of Annex 1, which in the Amended Petition dated October 31, 2004
and filed on November 3, 2004, will show that the Petitioner Rodolfo San Antonio is
praying that he be allowed to cultivate the land after the P300,000 is consigned by
Petitioner to the Honorable Adjudication Board. Up to the time of the filing of the
instant complaint, no such deposit or consignment took place and no evidence was
presented that respondent deposited the amount in court.

The fact is respondent promised to return the amount (Annex B and C

of the Complaint), but he failed to do so. The failure therefore of respondent to
account for and return the amount of P300,000 entrusted or given to him by his
client constitute gross misconduct and would subject him to disciplinary action
under the Code.[16]

In Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-342 dated July 17, 2008, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved with modification as to penalty the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Instead, it ordered that Atty. Alvero be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years and, likewise, ordered him to account for and return the
amount of P300,000.00 to complainants within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.

The Office of the Bar Confidant redocketed the instant case as a regular administrative
complaint against Atty. Alvero and, subsequently, recommended that this Court issue an
extended resolution for the final disposition of the case.

We sustain the findings and recommendations of the IBP-CBD.

Undoubtedly, Atty. Alvero breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rules

16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read:

CANON 1.

A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESS.

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 16.

A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND

PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary
to satisfy his unlawful fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules of Court.

In the instant case, Atty. Alvero admitted to having received the

amount of P300,000.00 from San Antonio, specifically for the purpose of
depositing it in court. However, as found by the IBP-CBD, Atty. Alvero
presented no evidence that he had indeed deposited the amount in or

consigned it to the court. Neither was there any evidence that he had
returned the amount to Barcenas or San Antonio.

From the records of the case, there is likewise a clear breach of lawyerclient relations. When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular
purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing
that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return
the money to his client.[17] These, Atty. Alvero failed to do.

Jurisprudence dictates that a lawyer who obtains possession of the

funds and properties of his client in the course of his professional
employment shall deliver the same to his client (a) when they become due,
or (b) upon demand. In the instant case, respondent failed to account for
and return the P300,000.00 despite complainants repeated demands. [18]

Atty. Alvero cannot take refuge in his claim that there existed no
attorney-client relationship between him and Barcenas. Even if it were true
that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it
that an attorney may be removed, or otherwise disciplined, not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in the profession, but also for gross misconduct
not connected with his professional duties, making him unfit for the office
and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon
him.[19]

Atty. Alveros failure to immediately account for and return the money
when due and upon demand violated the trust reposed in him,
demonstrated his lack of integrity and moral soundness, and warranted the
imposition of disciplinary action. It gave rise to the presumption that he
converted the money for his own use, and this act constituted a gross
violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the
legal profession.[20] They constitute gross misconduct and gross unethical
behavior for which he may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, which provides:

Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefor. - 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

We come to the penalty imposable in this case.

In Small v. Banares,[21] the respondent was suspended for two years

for violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
for failing to file a case for which the amount of P80,000.00 was given him
by the client, and for failing to return the said amount upon demand.
Considering that similar circumstances are attendant in this case, the Court
finds the Resolution of the IBP imposing on respondent a two-year
suspension to be in order.
As a final note, we reiterate: the practice of law is not a right, but a
privilege. It is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must
maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. [22] For the practice of
law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is
entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character.
Those who are unable or unwilling to comply with the responsibilities and
meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege to
practice law.[23]

WHEREFORE, Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-342 dated July 17,

2008 of the IBP-CBD Board of Governors, which found respondent Atty.
Anorlito A. AlveroGUILTY of gross misconduct, is AFFIRMED. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years from the practice of law,
effective upon the receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of
the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Alvero as a
member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 6651

February 27, 2006

EDUARDO P. MENESES, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO, Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Eduardo P. Meneses ("complainant") against Atty. Rodolfo P. Macalino
("respondent") for violation of the lawyers oath.
The Facts
Complainant alleged that sometime in March 1993, respondent offered his legal services to complainant to help
secure the release of complainants car from the Bureau of Customs. Respondent proposed to handle the case for a
"package deal" of P60,000. Complainant agreed and initially gave respondent P10,000 for processing of the papers.
In June 1993, respondent asked for P30,000 to expedite the release of the car. In both instances, respondent did

not issue a receipt but promised to furnish complainant with a receipt from the Bureau of Customs. Since then,
respondent failed to give complainant an update on the matter.
Complainant repeatedly went to respondents house to inquire on the status of the release of the car. Complainant
was always told that respondent was not around and to just return another day. This went on for more than a year.
In April 1994, complainant went to the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") to file a complaint for estafa against
respondent.1 The NBI set the complaint for investigation on 27 April 1994.
Respondent wrote a letter2 to the NBI dated 26 April 1994, requesting for postponement of the investigation to 12
May 1994. Respondent stated in his letter that he would settle the matter amicably with complainant and return
the P40,000. Respondent failed to appear for the investigation scheduled on 12 May 1994.
Respondent sent another letter3 to the NBI dated 23 May 1994, requesting for the suspension of the proceedings
because he had partially settled the case. Respondent attached the acknowledgment receipt 4 signed by
complainant representing the partial refund of P20,000. Respondent promised to pay the balance on or before 8
June 1994. However, respondent did not pay the balance. The NBI set the complaint for investigation twice and
subpoenaed respondent but he failed to appear.
On 22 January 1996, the NBI, through Director Mariano M. Mison, found insufficient evidence to prosecute
respondent for estafa. Nevertheless, the NBI advised complainant to file a complaint for disbarment against
respondent.5
On 30 April 1996, complainant filed a verified complaint6 for disbarment against respondent with the Commission on
Bar Discipline ("Commission") of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"). Complainant charged respondent with
failure to render legal services, failure to refund balance of legal fees, and failure to apprise the complainant of the
status of the case all in violation of the lawyers oath of office.
In an Order7 dated 23 July 1998, Investigating Commissioner Ma. Carmina M. Alejandro-Abbas ("Commissioner
Abbas") ordered respondent to submit his answer to the complaint. Respondent was also warned that if he failed to
file an answer, the Commission would consider him in default and the case would be heard ex-parte. Although he
received the Order, respondent failed to file an answer.
The case was set for initial hearing on 7 May 2002. Despite receipt of the notice of hearing, respondent failed to
appear. Complainant was present and he informed Commissioner Abbas that he had previously filed a complaint for
estafa against respondent with the NBI. Commissioner Abbas then issued a subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Waldo
Palattao, or his duly authorized representative, of the Anti-Fraud Action Division of the NBI for the case folder and all
the documents pertaining to the complaint.8 Mr. Emil Rejano, a confidential agent of the NBI, submitted all the
documents during the hearing on 29 July 2002.9
Further hearings were scheduled for 27 June 2002, 29 July 2002, 9 September 2002, 8 October 2002 and 5
November 2002. Despite due notice, respondent failed to appear on these dates.
On 18 August 2004, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa ("Commissioner Funa"), who took over the
investigation, issued an order submitting the case for decision based on the evidence on record. Respondents
failure to file an answer and to attend the hearings were deemed a waiver of his right to participate in the
proceedings and present evidence.10
The IBPs Report and Recommendation

lavvph!1.net

The IBP Board of Governors issued CBD Resolution No. XVI-2004-414 ("IBP Resolution") dated 7 October 2004
adopting with modification11 Commissioner Funas Report and Recommendation ("Report") finding respondent guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the imposition on
respondent of a penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law. The Report reads:
From the records of the case, there is clearly a breach of lawyer-client relations. Moreover, [r]espondent has
continuously exhibited his adamant refusal to comply with his legal obligations to his client, despite many
opportunities to settle the matter amicably. Aggravating this is [r]espondents utter disregard of the legal process
before the NBI, choosing to ignore notices from the NBI in the middle of an investigation. In addition, [r]espondent
has continuously disregarded the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is clear from the records of the case that
[r]espondent has duly received the orders and notices from this Commission as evidenced by the [r]egistry [r]eturn
[r]eceipts.
In the absence of any counter-allegations from [r]espondent, which is by his own doing, the allegations of the
[c]omplainant shall stand and be given its due credence.12 (Emphasis supplied)
The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the instant case to the Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139B13 of the Rules of Court.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 16,14 Rule 16.01,15 Rule 16.03,16 and Rule 18.0417 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code").
Respondent Failed to Inform and to Respond
to Inquiries of the Complainant
Regarding the Status of the Case
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, it is the lawyers duty to keep the client regularly and fully
updated on the developments of the clients case. 18 The Code provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information." 19
The records show that after receiving P40,000, respondent was never heard of again. Respondent kept complainant
in the dark about the status of the release of the car. Only after complainant filed a complaint with the NBI did
respondent communicate with complainant. Moreover, it appears that respondent failed to render any legal service
to facilitate the cars release. In fact, respondent failed to secure the release of the car. Respondents failure to
communicate with complainant was an unjustified denial of complainants right to be fully informed of the status of
the case.20
Respondent Failed to Account and
Return the Money He Received from Complainant
The Code mandates that every "lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into
his possession."21 The Code further states that "[a] lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client."22 Furthermore, "[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
and upon demand."23
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting
to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. 24 Consequently, if the lawyer does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client. 25

Respondent specifically received the P40,000 for his legal services and for the processing fee to facilitate the
release of complainants car. Since respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant and he also failed to
secure the cars release, respondent should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant.
But even after demand, respondent did not return the money. Again, respondent waited until complainant filed a
complaint with the NBI before he refunded the P20,000. Even then, respondent failed to return the balance
of P20,000 as he promised.
Respondents failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and
propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on him.26 Respondents unjustified withholding of money belonging to
the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.27
Respondent Failed to File an Answer and
Attend the Hearings before the IBP
The Court notes that respondents actuation reveals a high degree of irresponsibility 28 and shows his lack of respect
for the IBP and its proceedings.29 Respondents attitude demonstrates a character which stains the nobility of the
legal profession.30
On the Appropriate Penalty to be Imposed
on Respondent
The Court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP to suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year
well-taken. Following the rulings of this Court, those found guilty of the same or similar acts were suspended for not
less than six months from the practice of law.31 Considering respondents lack of prior administrative record,
suspension from the practice of law for one year, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the
purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession. This Court will exercise its power to disbar
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and a member of the bar.32
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Rodolfo P. Macalino GUILTY of violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule
16.03, and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Rodolfo P. Macalino from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of this decision. Respondent
isORDERED TO RETURN to complainant, within 30 days from notice of this decision, the full amount of P20,000
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is
further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within 15 days from payment.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal
record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7021

February 21, 2007

MELVIN D. SMALL, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JERRY BANARES, Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Melvin D. Small (complainant) against Atty. Jerry Banares 1(respondent)
for failure to render legal services and to return the money received for his legal services.
The Facts
On 30 August 2001, complainant engaged the services of respondent in connection with several complaints to be
filed against one Lyneth Amar (Amar). Complainant paid respondent P20,000 as acceptance fee.2
On 4 September 2001, complainant gave respondent P60,000 as filing fees for the cases against Amar.3Respondent
then wrote a demand letter for Amar and talked to Amar on the phone. Respondent also informed complainant that
he would be preparing the documents for the cases. Complainant consistently communicated with respondent
regarding the status of the cases. But respondent repeatedly told complainant to wait as respondent was still
preparing the documents.
On 5 January 2002, complainant required respondent to present all the documents respondent had prepared for the
cases against Amar. Respondent was not able to present any document. This prompted complainant to demand for
a full refund of the fees he had paid respondent. 4 Complainant even hired the services of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo to
recover the money from respondent. But respondent failed to return the money. Hence, complainant filed a case for
disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against respondent.
On 15 October 2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to
the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer despite receipt of the order.
On 21 January 2005, IBP Investigating Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes (IBP Commissioner Reyes) notified the
parties to appear before him for a mandatory conference on 3 March 2005. Only complainant appeared at the
conference. As there was no proof that respondent received the notice, IBP Commissioner Reyes reset the
mandatory conference to 30 March 2005 and, later, to 14 April 2005. Respondent was warned that, if he fails to
appear at the conference, the case will be considered submitted for resolution.
1awphi1.net

On the 14 April 2005 conference, only complainant appeared despite respondents receipt of the notice. The
Commission on Bar Discipline considered the case submitted for resolution.
The IBPs Report and Recommendation
On 14 July 2005, IBP Commissioner Reyes submitted his Report and Recommendation (Report) with the finding
that respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant despite having been paid for his services. The
Report considered complainants evidence sufficient to find respondent guilty of violating Canons 16, 5 18,6 and 197 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code). IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended the imposition on
respondent of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years and that respondent be ordered to
return complainants P80,000.

In a Resolution dated 12 November 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report. The IBP
Board of Governors forwarded the instant case to the Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B 8 of the
Rules of Court.
The Courts Ruling
We sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The Code provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. 9 The Code states that a
lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.10
The records show that after receiving P80,000 respondent was never heard from again. Respondent failed to give
complainant an update on the status of the cases. Moreover, it appears that respondent failed to file the appropriate
cases against Amar. Respondents failure to communicate with complainant was an unjustified denial of
complainants right to be fully informed of the status of the cases. When respondent agreed to be complainants
counsel, respondent undertook to take all the necessary steps to safeguard complainants interests. 11 By his
inaction, respondent disregarded his duties as a lawyer.
The Code also mandates that every lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys of his client that may come into his
possession.12 Furthermore, a lawyer shall account for all money received from the client and shall deliver the funds
of the client upon demand.13
In Meneses v. Macalino,14 the Court ruled that:
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting
to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client. 15
Respondent specifically received P80,000 for his legal services and the filing fees for the cases against Amar. Since
respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant and he failed to file a case against Amar, respondent
should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant. But even after demand, respondent did
not return the money. Respondents failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is a violation of the
trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity.16
Moreover, respondents misconduct is aggravated by his failure to file an answer to the complaint and his refusal to
appear at the mandatory conference. The IBP rescheduled the mandatory conference twice to give respondent a
chance to answer the complaint. Still, respondent failed to appear, exhibiting his lack of respect for the IBP and its
proceedings.17
The relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary, requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, and fidelity on the part of
the attorney. In this case, respondent clearly fell short of the demands required of him as a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Jerry Banares GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 18 and Rules 16.01,
16.03, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for two years effective upon finality of this Decision. We ORDER respondent to RETURN, within 30
days from notice of this decision, complainants P80,000, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
promulgation of this decision until full payment. We DIRECT respondent to submit to the Court proof of payment
within fifteen days from payment of the full amount.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal
record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

[A.C. No. 1526. January 31, 2005]

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S.

HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:

For our resolution is the verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose C.
Go dated June 23, 1975 filed by Nazaria S. Hernandez (now deceased). Both parties are
from Zamboanga City.
[1]

The allegations in the letter-complaint are:

Sometime in 1961, complainants husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husbands numerous creditors demanded payments
of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage contracts involving her properties will be
foreclosed and aware of impending suits for sums of money against her, complainant
engaged the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent.
Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear, embarrassment,
and social humiliation. He advised her to give him her land titles covering Lots 848-A,
849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he could sell them to enable her to pay her
creditors. He then persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any
monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on condition that he would sell
the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A, likewise located in Zamboanga
City, which were mortgaged to her creditors. When the mortgages fell due, respondent
redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced her to execute deeds of sale involving those lots
in his favor. As a result, respondent became the registered owner of all the lots belonging
to complainant.

Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent did not sell her lots as
agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his own funds and had her land titles
registered in his name, depriving her of her real properties worth millions.
In our Resolution dated September 24, 1975, respondent was required to file his
comment on the complaint.
Instead of filing his comment, respondent submitted a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the complaint is premature since there is pending before the then Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga City Civil Case No. 1781 for recovery of ownership and
declaration of nullity of deeds of sale filed by complainant against him involving the subject
lots.
[2]

On November 14, 1975, we issued a Resolution denying respondents motion and

requiring him to submit his answer.
In his answer dated December 19, 1975, respondent denied the allegations in the
instant complaint. He averred that he sold, in good faith, complainants lots to various
buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. On several occasions, he extended
financial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live with his family. His
children used to call her Lola due to her frequent visits to his residence. He prayed that
the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
On January 17, 1977, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
for investigation, report, and recommendation.
It was only on March 13, 1990 or after 13 years, 1 month and 26 days that the OSG
filed a motion to refer the instant case to the IBP for the retaking of the testimonies of
complainants witnesses and the submission of its report and recommendation.
On April 4, 1990, we issued a Resolution referring the case to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2004 of Atty. Lydia A. Navarro,
Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, is quoted as follows:
A careful examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties showed that all the
properties of the complainant are presently owned by the respondent by virtue of several deeds of
sale executed by the complainant in favor of the respondent without monetary consideration except
Lot 849-D situated in Tomas Claudio which was returned by the respondent to the complainant on
September 5, 1974.

It is evident from the records that respondent was the one who notarized the documents involving
the said properties redeemed or repurchased by the complainant from her creditors which ended up
in respondents name like in the deed of sale executed by Victoriano Dejerano in favor of Nazaria
Hernandez over Lots 1141-A-3-A and 1141-A-3-B; deed of sale executed by Antonio Masrahon on
September 3, 1961regarding Lot No. 1141-A; deed of absolute sale executed by Francisco Esperat
over the Curuan properties on November 9, 1971 and the cancellation of the mortgage executed by
Alfonso Enriquez on July 18, 1964 over the Tomas Claudio properties.
The foregoing legal activities and operations of the respondent in addition to his having discussed,
advised and gave solutions to complainants legal problems and liabilities to her creditors and even
requested her creditors for extension of time to pay complainants accounts constitute practice of
law as legal counsel for consultation aside from representing complainant in other cases; a mute
proof of a lawyer-client relations between them, a fact also admitted by the respondent.
It is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report to the complainant on how
he paid complainants creditors without selling her properties. Instead of selling to buyers at higher
price, he paid them out of his own funds; then later on admitted that he was one of the purchasers
of complainants properties in utter disregard of their agreement and no evidence was submitted by
the respondent concerning the value of the said sale of complainants properties.
As such, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his obligation and duty as
complainants legal adviser and counsel when he took advantage of the trust and confidence
reposed in him by the complainant in ultimately putting complainants properties in his name and
possession in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that respondent
Atty. Jose C. Go be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from receipt
hereof and the IBP Chapter where he is a registered member be furnished a copy of the same for
implementation hereof, subject to the approval of the Honorable Members of the Board of
Governors.
On July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2004-39
adopting and approving the Report of Commissioner Navarro with modification in the
sense that the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law was
increased from six (6) months to three (3) years.
We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding that respondent
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. However, we have to modify its
recommended penalty.
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal source of ethical
rules for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides:

A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.
Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for himself complainants lots
entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous
wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment. Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades
not only himself but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated this
Courts mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.
[3]

[4]

Canon 17 of the same Code states:

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
The records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and confidence
in herein respondent, that when she engaged his services, she entrusted to him her land
titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to
pay her creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence when he did
not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her
obligations. As correctly observed by Investigating IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro,
respondent is duty-bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on how much he
sold the latters lots and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously, had he sold the lots
to other buyers, complainant could have earned more. Records show that she did not
receive any amount from respondent. Clearly, respondent did not adhere faithfully and
honestly in his duty as complainants counsel.
Undoubtedly, respondents conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal
profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. We have been exacting in our demand for
integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times
to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal profession is a
privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the
trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the
duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his conduct,
blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.
[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and ability to
protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and
candor not only protects his clients cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does
honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining
in the legal profession.
[9]

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice; (3)gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority to do so.
[10]

In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when he deceived

his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money and later refused to return the
same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses III, we disbarred a member of the Bar
for his refusal or failure to account for the P50,000.00 he received from a client to settle a
case. InDocena vs. Limson, we expelled from the brotherhood of lawyers, an attorney
who extorted money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation. In Busios vs.
Ricafort, an attorney was stripped of his license to practice law for misappropriating his
clients money.
[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Considering the depravity of respondents offense, we find the penalty recommended

by the IBP too light. It bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his clients
financial plight to acquire the latters properties for his own benefit is destructive of the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus,
for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards
of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent
deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers.
WHEREFORE, respondent JOSE S. GO is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED.

[A.C. No. 4349. December 22, 1997]

LOURDES
R.
BUSIOS,
RICAFORT, respondent.

complainant,

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:

vs. ATTY.

FRANCISCO

In a sworn complaint for disbarment dated 31 October 1994 but received by us on 21

November 1994, complainant Lourdes R. Busios charged respondent Atty. Francisco
Ricafort, a practicing lawyer in Oas, Albay, with having committed the crime of estafa
under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code by misappropriating the sum
of P32,000.00. Of this amount,P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the
bank account of complainants husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount
respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in Civil Case No. 5814,
when no such bond was required.
In the resolution of 18 January 1995, we required respondent to comment on the
complaint. Despite his receipt of a copy of the resolution, respondent did not comply,
compelling us in the resolution of 17 July 1995 to require him to show cause why he
should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure.
Again respondent failed to comply. Hence in the resolution of 25 September 1996, we
ordered him once more to file his comment within ten (10) days from notice, and within the
same period, to pay a fine of P1,000.00 or suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days should he
fail to so pay. In a Compliance and Motion dated 24 October 196, respondent transmitted
the fine ofP1,000.00 by way of postal money order, but asked for five (5) days from date to
file his comment. As respondent still failed to so file, we then declared, in the resolution of
2 December 1996, that respondent was deemed to have waived his right to file his
comment, and referred the complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant for reception of
complainants evidence and submission of a report and recommendation thereon.
On 16 October 1997, the Bar Confidant, Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa, submitted her Report
and Recommendation, material portions of which read as follows:
Respondent Atty. Francisco Ricafort stands charged with having misappropriated the sum
of P30,000.00 intended for his clients as well as having deceived his clients into giving him the
sum of P2,000.00 purportedly to be deposited as a bond in the case he was handling.
Complainant Lourdes R. Busios is one of the heirs of Pedro Rodrigo who are the defendants in
Civil Case No. 1584, apparently a case involving the properties of the late Pedro Rodrigo, father of
herein complainant. Respondent was the counsel of record for the defendants in the said case. On
July 10, 1994, complainant representing her co-heirs, executed a special power of attorney,
appointing and constituting respondent and/or Pedro Rodrigo, Jr. to be her true and lawful attorneyin-fact with the following powers:
1.
To attend to and represent me, testify, or otherwise enter into compromise during the pretrial stage or other proceedings in Civil Case No. 1584, entitled Heirs of Rosario Rodrigo-

Reantaso, vs. Heirs of Pedro Rodrigo Sr., et al. now pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 12, Ligao, Albay;
2
To demand, collect and receipt for any and all sums of money that may now be deposited
in said court by the defendant Oas Standard High School or hereafter be deposited by said
defendant, due and owing to me or said Heirs of Pedro Rodrigo Sr., representing the rentals of said
defendants for the lease of the property involved in said case; and
3
To sign, authenticate, issue and deliver any and all deeds, instruments, papers and other
records necessary and pertinent to the above stated transactions.
On August 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Br. 12 issued an order, directing the
Clerk of Court to release any and all deposits of rentals made in connection with this case (Civil
Case No. 1584) to the defendants Heirs of Pedro Rodrigo through Lourdes Rodrigo Businos who
were receiving the rentals from Oas Standard High School prior to the institution of this case.
In a letter dated August 10, 1994, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Ligao informed herein complainant
that respondent had already received the rental deposit of P25,000.00 on eve date (see Annex C
to the complaint). Respondent also received from Oas Standard High School on August 17, 1994
the sum of P5,000.00 as payment for rental of school site for the month of July 1994 (See Annex
D to the complaint). The said sum was entrusted to respondent with an obligation on his part to
deposit the same in the account of complainants husband at PNB, Ligao Branch. Instead, however,
of depositing the money, respondent converted the money to his own personal use, and despite
several demands, he failed to return the same to complainant. She was thus constrained to file a
criminal case for estafa and an administrative case for disbarment against him. Thus, on November
21, 1994, complainant filed the instant administrative case against respondent.
Complainant further accuses respondent for demanding and receiving P2,000.00 from her which he
said will be used for the bond in Civil Case No. 1584, but said amount was never used as intended
since no bond was required in the said case. Thus, respondent merely pocketed the said amount.
xxx

xxx
xxx

Complainant, upon questioning by the undersigned, testified that: She authorized respondent to
withdraw the money amounting to P35,000.00 representing the rental fee paid by Oas Standard
High School from the Clerk of Court, with the instruction to deposit the same in her savings
account at the PNB. After she was informed by the court that respondent had already withdrawn the
money, she expected in vain to receive the money a week later in Tarlac as respondent failed to
effect the deposit of the said sum in her account. She demanded from him to give her the money,
but he informed her that he had already spent the same. He promised, though to pay her the said
amount. (pp. 7-8, TSN, Reception of Evidence, April 18, 1997). She clarified that respondent

withdrew only the sum of P30,000.00 from the Clerk of Court, while the P5,000.00 was withdrawn
by respondent from Oas Standard High School (TSN, p. 8). Despite several demands, both from her
and her lawyer, respondent failed to make good his promise to give her the money he withdrew
from the Clerk of Court and Oas Standard High School (TSN, pp. 11-13). She was then constrained
to file a criminal case for estafa and an administrative case against respondent sometime in
November of 1994 to recover the money in question (TSN, pp. 14-16).On their third hearing of the
estafa case sometime in 1995, respondent came with the money and paid complainant inside the
courtroom (TSN, pp. 15, 19-20). Because of this development, she did not anymore pursue the
estafa case against respondent (TSN, p. 17). She has no intention, however, of withdrawing the
instant complaint (TSN, p. 18).
She further testified that respondent demanded from her the sum of P2,000.00 for the bond required
in the civil case. (TSN, p. 18). Respondent did not give her a receipt for the said amount. (TSN, p.
19). Respondent gave back the P2,000.00 to complainant. He paid complainant a total
of P60,000.00 representing the money he withdrew from the Clerk of Court and Oas Standard High
School, the P2,000.00 he got from complainant and attorneys fees, which he undertook to foot as a
way of settlement. (TSN, p. 19).
Although complainant failed to submit the original or certified true copies of the documents in
support of her complaint against respondent, respondents repeated failure to comply with several
resolutions of the Court requiring him to comment on the complaint lends credence to the
allegations of the complainant. It manifests his tacit admission thereto. We have no other
alternative, therefore, but to accept the said documents at their [sic] face value.
There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their
consent. As the evidentiary value of the documents should be given more weight than the oral
testimony of complainant, we place the amount illegally used by respondent at P30,000.00 and
not P35,000.00 as claimed by complainant. Respondents illegal use of his clients money is made
more manifest [by] his letters to complainant, all promising the latter to make good his promise to
pay the money he withdrew from the Clerk of Court and Oas Standard High School (See Annex
E to the complaint).
It bears emphasis that a lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or
malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report
promptly the money of his client that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it
with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his cllients [sic] consent. He
should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust (Daroy vs. Legaspi, 65 SCRA
304).
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to them (Aya vs. Bigornia, 57 Phil. 8).

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent ,
and by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used
as a bond which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he
degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable
profession.
His belated payment of the amount he illegally used and fraudulently obtained do not relieve him
from any liability if only to impress upon him that the relation between an attorney and his client is
highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring
high degree of fidelity and good faith. In view of that special relationship, lawyers are bound to
promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to
do so constitutes professional misconduct (Daroy vs. Legaspi, supra).
Moreover, his repeated failure to comply with the resolutions of the Court, requiring him to
comment on the complaint indicate the high degree of irresponsibility of respondent.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty.Francisco
Ricafort be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR.
While the findings are in order, the penalty recommended is not commensurate to
respondents infractions.
Plainly, respondent breached Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01
of Canon 1 and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which read:
SEC. 25 Unlawful retention of clients funds; contempt.--When an attorney unjustly retains in his
hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for contempt as an
officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this
section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.
CANON 1- A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01-- A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.

Rule 16.02-- A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03-- A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Respondents transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave
misconduct and grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to
respondent, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be denied that
the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of
the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.
This Court has been nothing short of exacting in its demand for integrity and good
moral character from members of the Bar. In Marcelo v. Javier (A.C. No. 3248, 18
September 1992, 214 SCRA 1, 12-13), reiterated in Fernandez v. Grecia, (A.C. No. 3694,
17 June 1993, 223 SCRA 425, 434), this Court declared:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and
confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of
his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high
standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing . Generally speaking, a lawyer
can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the profession.
Here, respondent chose to forget that by swearing the lawyers oath, he became a
guardian of truth and the rule of law and an indispensable instrument in the fair and
impartial administration of justice -- a vital function of democracy a failure of which is
disastrous to society.
Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of
his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority. This is
specially so, as here, where respondent even deliberately defied the lawful orders of the
Court for him to file his comment on the complaint, thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the
respect due the courts.

WHEREFORE, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, grossly unethical behavior in

palpable disregard of Section 25 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
aggravated by a violation of Canon 11 thereof, and consistent with the urgent need to
maintain the esteemed traditions and high standards of the legal profession and to
preserve undiminished public faith in the members of the Philippine Bar, the Court
Resolves to DISBAR respondent ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT from the practice law.
His name is hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
This resolution shall take effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal record; the National Office
and the Albay Chapter of the Integrated bar of the Philippines; the Philippines Judges
Association; and all courts of the land for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7181

February 6, 2009

MARIA ANGALAN, NENA ANGALAN, DIONICIO ANGALAN, MAGDALENA ANGALAN, FRANCISCA

ANGALAN, INIS ANGALAN, ROSALINO ANGALAN, AND JOSEFINA ANGALAN, ALL OF WHOM ARE HEIRS
OF ANGALAN SAMAL married to SANAAN SAMAL, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE, Respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This is a complaint filed by Maria, Nena, Dionicio, Magdalena, Francisca, Inis, Rosalino, and Josefina Angalan
(complainants) against Atty. Leonido C. Delante (respondent) for gross violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal (Angalan) and Sanaan Samal (Sanaan). Complainants allege that
they are illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe. Angalan, Sanaan, and complainants owned a 9.102-hectare parcel
of land in Barrio San Jose, Kaputian, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte. The property was covered by
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11499.1
On 15 April 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowed P15,000 from Navarro R. Eustaquio and Arabella P.
Eustaquio (Spouses Eustaquio). To secure the loan, Angalan and complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of the
9.102-hectare property and surrendered OCT No. P-11499 to the Spouses Eustaquio. The Spouses Eustaquio

prepared a document2 and asked Angalan and complainants to sign it. Angalan and complainants affixed their
thumb marks on the document.
When complainants tried to pay the loan and recover OCT No. P-11499 from the Spouses Eustaquio, the Spouses
Eustaquio refused. Complainants learned that the document which the Spouses Eustaquio prepared, and which
complainants signed, was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. They also learned that Navarro
R. Eustaquio (Navarro) had transferred the title over the 8.102-property to his name OCT No. P-11499 was
canceled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-99263 in the name of Navarro was issued.
1avvphi1.zw+

Complainants engaged the services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property. In a receipt 4dated 18
November 1970, respondent acknowledged receipt of P1,200 from Francisca Angalan and her husband, Macario
Capul (Capul), representing the full payment of his professional fees: "Received from Mr. MACARIO CAPUL and
FRANCISCA RAFAEL CAPUL the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing full
payment of professional services in regard to recovery of Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499 in the name of
Angalan (Samal)."
Respondent filed a complaint5 dated 13 April 1976 with the then Court of First Instance (CFI), now Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Judicial Region XVI, Tagum, Davao stating that:
2. x x x Angalan Samal and his children x x x are the original patentees of a certain parcel of land, situated in
Ombay, Samal, Davao, covered under Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499, of the Registry of Deeds of Davao,
having acquired the same under HP-No. 65310, pursuant to the provisions of the Homestead Laws of the Public
Land Law (C.A. 141);
3. x x x [O]n April 15, 1971, the herein original patentees x x x sold and conveyed said parcel of land covered by the
aforesaid title to the herein defendants for the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) x x x;
4. x x x [U]nder the provisions of the Public Land Law, particularly Section 119 thereof and even on the face of the
title of said property now under the name of the defendants x x x the herein plaintiffs have the right to repurchase
said property within a period of five (5) years from the date of the conveyance;
xxxx
7. [A]s a matter of right under the law, the herein plaintiffs are entitled to the produce of the property at least
beginning April 8, 1976;
xxxx
9. [B]y reason of unwarranted refusal on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to plaintiffs, the latter
have been constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the services of counsel x x x 6
Complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement. In the amicable settlement 7 dated 3
September 1977, the parties stated that:
1. x x x [T]he plaintiffs have offered to the defendant[s] the sum of P30,000.00 as repurchase price which the
defendant[s accept];
2. x x x [U]pon the signing hereof, the plaintiffs shall pay the defendant[s] the sum of P15,000.00 and for this
purpose hereby authorize the defendants to collect the same from the Clerk of Court which amount had
been deposited with this Honorable Court; Likewise, upon signing hereof the Deed of Reconveyance shall
be immediately executed and delivered by the defendants to plaintiff[s];

3. x x x [W]hile the balance of P15,000.00 has not been paid, the defendant[s] shall continue to possess,
and if necessary to gather the produce of the property, however, upon receipt of the defendant[s] of the
balance of P15,000.00, said defendants together with [their] agent and/or worker, Alfredo Rabadon shall
clear the area and turnover the same within fifteen (15) days from receipt [of] said balance. 8
In a Decision9 dated 30 September 1977, the CFI approved the amicable settlement.
Complainants did not have the P30,000 repurchase price for the property. Respondent advanced the P30,000 and,
in return, complainants allowed respondent to possess the property and gather its produce until he is paid. In a
letter10 dated 10 January 1979 and addressed to the barrio captain of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, respondent
stated that:
This will inform you that the Heirs of Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property through me from Mr.
Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978. In my capacity as counsel of the Heirs of Angalan Samal and owner of
the money in redeeming the property, I have authorized Mr. Macario Capol to take over the possession of the
property together with the harvesting of the matured coconuts.
1avvphi1

When complainants tried to repay the P30,000 repurchase price and recover the property from respondent,
respondent refused. Complainants learned that respondent transferred the title of the property to his name TCT
No. T-9926 was canceled and TCT No. T-5793211 in the name of respondent was issued.
Complainants filed a complaint12 dated 30 April 2004 with the RTC, Judicial Region XI, Branch 34, Davao City
praying that (1) the deed of absolute sale prepared by the Spouses Eustaquio and signed by the complainants be
declared void, (2) TCT No. T-57932 be declared void, and (3) respondent be made to pay damages. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 57-2004. In his answer 13 dated 29 December 2004, respondent stated that:
[In] 1971, ANGALAN (SAMAL) [now deceased) [sic] together with his son-in-law, MACARIO CAPUL, the latter being
the town mate of herein defendant Delante in Danao, Cebu and who is married to the daughter of the late
ANGALAN (SAMAL), came to herein defendants office and sought for an advice to borrow money;
x x x [T]he late ANGALAN (SAMAL) together with his children in company with MACARIO CAPUL, were directed by
herein defendant to inform him why it was necessary for them to borrow money and for whatever [sic] purpose; after
their story, herein defendant disagreed as to their justification in borrowing money which was for no other purpose
except to have money on their own;
xxxx
It is preposterous for plaintiff[s] to claim that they had [sic] engaged the professional services of herein defendant to
file an annulment case since plaintiffs never came back apparently ashamed when they were driven out, but worse
they had [sic] never paid the herein defendant a single centavo for purposes of filing an annulment case against codefendant NAVARRO EUSTAQUIO;
x x x [T]he transfer of said property consisting of 8.102 hectares under the name of herein defendants was not
tainted with any deceit but effected legally by virtue of a valid deed of sale executed by defendants [sic] spouses
EUSTAQUIO in favor of herein defendants.
xxxx
[T]he absolute deed of sale, [sic] dated 15 April 1971, executed by herein plaintiffs in favor of defendants
EUSTAQUIO, speaks for itself. It is a sale of real property and NOT a mortgage.

xxxx
Contrary to the malicious and untruthful claim of the plaintiffs, the legal services of defendant Atty. LEONIDO
DELANTE was never solicited by them. Plaintiffs only asked defendant from where they could borrow money, and
after knowing that they just simply would [sic] like to borrow money without any concrete investments in mind to
repay [sic] back [sic] any loan, defendant Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE drove them out of his office and told them to
look for another person to help them;
Defendant Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE later learned from MACARIO CAPUL, who is a friend and a town mate, and
who is the husband of FRANCISCA ANGALAN CAPUL, that the plaintiffs had negotiated a sale with a certain
NAVARRO EUSTAQUIO x x x;
In September 1977, a former Filipino client of herein defendant DELANTE, who, and his family [sic] are now
permanent residents of New York, was looking for a real property to build his retirement home, [sic] and he
approached herein defendant, in which he was referred to defendant EUSTAQUIO [sic]; Upon visiting the property
of defendant EUSTAQUIO, he was so impressed of the location of the property and decided to buy the same, hence
left the money to herein defendant DELANTE and to buy [sic] said property under defendants name, with the
understanding to turn over said property to him, as soon as he and his family shall have returned to the country;
x x x [S]ince herein defendant is not interested over the said property as his own, he waited for his client from New
York to come home and to get his property but after 11 years, his client decided not to come back anymore to the
Philippines, and directed herein defendant to register the Deed of Sale over the property to [sic] his name and
directed herein defendant to refund his client.14
Complainants filed a complaint15 dated 28 December 2005 with the Court charging respondent with gross violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In a Resolution16 dated 3 July 2006, the Court required respondent to
comment on the complaint and, in a Resolution17 dated 4 December 2006, the Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a Notice dated 14 March 2007, Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Commissioner Hababag) directed
complainants and respondent to appear before the IBP for a mandatory conference. The parties failed to appear at
the mandatory conference. In an Order dated 16 May 2007, Commissioner Hababag directed the parties to submit
their position papers.
In a motion dated 4 April 2007 and filed with the RTC, respondent and complainants prayed that Civil Case No. 572004 be dismissed. Complainants filed with the Court a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment dated 4
April 2007 and an affidavit of desistance dated April 2007.
In his position paper dated 2 July 2007, respondent stated that (1) Angalan and Capul went to his office in 1971 to
seek advice about borrowing money; (2) his client from New York bought the property from the Spouses Eustaquio;
and (3) complainants executed a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance.
In a Report dated 15 October 2007, Commissioner Hababag found that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
The issue to resolve is whether or not respondent committed grave violation of [the] Code of Professional
Responsibility when he bought the property of his client[s] without their knowledge, consent and against their will?
Weighing evidence presented by both parties, respondent should be punished for his unprofessional and
distasteful acts.

xxxx
His vain attempt to salvage his malicious acts was too flimsy to gain belief and acceptance. It is
unbelievable that a buyer would entrust his money intended for payment of a property but allowed that said
property be registered under the name of another, specifically his lawyer, simply runs counter to ordinary
human nature. (Emphasis supplied)
Commissioner Hababag recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months.
In a Resolution dated 22 November 2007, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and approved the Report
with modification. The Board increased respondents suspension from six months to one year.
Pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,18 the Board forwarded the case to the Court for final
action.
The Court sustains the findings of the IBP.
Complainants and respondent presented two different sets of facts. According to complainants, they engaged the
services of respondent for the purpose of recovering their property from the Spouses Eustaquio. In violation of the
trust and confidence they reposed in him, respondent transferred the title over the property to his name. According
to respondent, complainants did not engage his services. His client from New York was the one who bought the
property from the Spouses Eustaquio.
After a careful review of the records, the Court gives credence to complainants version of the facts.
Respondents credibility is highly questionable. In his answer dated 29 December 2004 and filed with the CFI and in
his position paper dated 2 July 2007 and filed with the IBP, respondent alleged that Angalan and Capul went to his
office in 1971 to seek advice about borrowing money. According to respondent, complainants did not engage his
services. In his answer, respondent stated that:
It is preposterous for [complainants] to claim that they had [sic] engaged the professional services of herein
defendant to file an annulment case since [complainants] never came back apparently ashamed when they were
driven out x x x;
xxxx
Contrary to the malicious and untruthful claim of [complainants], the legal services of defendant Atty.
LEONIDO DELANTE was never solicited by them. Plaintiffs only asked defendant from where they could
borrow money, and after knowing that they just simply would like to borrow money without any concrete
investments in mind to repay back [sic] any loan, defendant Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE drove them out of his office
and told them to look for another person to help them;
Defendant Atty. LEONIDO DELANTE later learned from MACARIO CAPUL x x x that the plaintiffs had
negotiated a sale with a certain NAVARRO EUSTAQUIO.19 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court is not impressed. Angalan and complainants went to respondents office not to seek advice about
borrowing money but to engage his services for the purpose of recovering their property. This is obvious. First, after
Angalan and complainants went to respondents office, respondent filed a complaint with the CFI praying that the
Spouses Eustaquio reconvey the property to Angalan and complainants. Second, in the complaint, respondent
stated that, "by reason of unwarranted refusal on the part of the defendants to reconvey the property to
plaintiffs, the latter have been constrained to engage, and in fact have engaged, the services of counsel."

Third, respondent issued a receipt to complainants stating that he "RECEIVED from Mr. MACARIO CAPUL and
FRANCISCA RAFAEL CAPUL the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing
full payment of professional services in regard to the recovery of Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499 in
the name of Angalan (Samal)." Fourth, in respondents letter dated 10 January 1979 and addressed to the barrio
captain of Umbay, Samal, Davao del Norte, he stated that he was the lawyer of complainants:
This will inform you that the Heirs of Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property through me from Mr.
Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978. In my capacity as counsel of the Heirs of Angalan Samal and owner
of the money in redeeming the property, I have authorized Mr. Macario Capol to take over the possession of the
property together with the harvesting of the matured coconuts.20
These clearly show that complainants engaged the services of respondent.
In his answer, respondent alleged that complainants did not pay him his professional fees (which, according to him,
they did not engage). He stated that, "[complainants] had never paid the herein defendant a single centavo for
purposes of filing an annulment case against x x x NAVARRO EUSTAQUIO."
The Court is not impressed. Complainants fully paid respondent his professional fees. This is obvious. In a receipt
dated 18 November 1970, respondent stated that he "RECEIVED from Mr. MACARIO CAPUL and FRANCISCA
RAFAEL CAPUL the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) representing full payment
of professional services in regard to the recovery of Original Certificate of Title No. P-11499 in the name of
Angalan (Samal)." This clearly shows that complainants paid respondent his professional fees.
In his answer and position paper, respondent alleged that his client from New York bought the property from the
Spouses Eustaquio:
[I]n September 1977, a former Filipino client of herein respondent, who, and his family [sic] are now permanent
residents of New York, was looking for a real property to build his retirement home, and he approached herein
respondent, in which [sic] he was referred to Navarro Eustaquio; and upon visiting the property of Navarro
Eustaquio, he was impressed of [sic] the location of the property and decided to buy the same, hence left the money
to herein respondent and to buy [sic] said property under respondents name, with the understanding to turn over
said property to him, as soon as he and his family shall have returned to the country;
x x x [S]ince herein respondent was not interested over the said property as his own, he waited for his client from
New York to come home and to get his property but after 11 years, his client decided not to come back anymore to
the Philippines, and directed herein respondent to register the Deed of Sale over the property under his name and
directed herein respondent to refund his client.21
The Court is not impressed. Complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio. This is obvious.
First, complainants and the Spouses Eustaquio entered into an amicable settlement stating that complainants would
repurchase the property from the Spouses Eustaquio:
1. x x x [T]he plaintiffs have offered to the defendant[s] the sum of P30,000.00 as repurchase price
which the defendant[s accept];
2. x x x [U]pon the signing hereof, the plaintiffs shall pay the defendant[s] the sum of P15,000.00 and for this
purpose hereby authorize the defendants to collect the same from the Clerk of Court which amount had
been deposited with this Honorable Court; Likewise, upon signing hereof the Deed of Reconveyance shall
be immediately executed and delivered by the defendants to plaintiff[s];

3. x x x [W]hile the balance of P15,000.00 has not been paid, the defendant[s] shall continue to possess,
and if necessary to gather the produce of the property, however, upon receipt of the defendant[s] of the
balance of P15,000.00, said defendants together with [their] agent and/or worker, Alfredo Rabadon shall
clear the area and turnover the same within fifteen (15) days from receipt [of] said balance. 22 (Emphasis
supplied)
Second, in his letter to the barrio captain, respondent stated that complainants repurchased the property from the
Spouses Eustaquio:
This will inform you that the Heirs of Angalan Samal have already redeemed their property through me from
Mr. Navarro Eustaquio since September, 1978. In my capacity as counsel of the Heirs of Angalan Samal and
owner of the money in redeeming the property, I have authorized Mr. Macario Capol to take over the possession of
the property together with the harvesting of the matured coconuts. 23 (Emphasis supplied)
These clearly show that complainants repurchased the property from the Spouses Eustaquio.
Respondents story about the client from New York is unbelievable. Respondent did not give any detail or proof to
substantiate his story the name of the alleged client, an affidavit of the alleged client, the old passport of the
alleged client showing immigration stamps, or any form of correspondence between him and the alleged client. The
Court agrees with the observation of Commissioner Hababag that respondents "vain attempt to salvage his
malicious acts [is] too flimsy to gain belief and acceptance."
In his position paper, respondent alleged that complainants executed a motion to withdraw the complaint for
disbarment and an affidavit of desistance. This is immaterial. Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court states that,
"No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."
Respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 16 states that lawyers
shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession. Respondent should have
held in trust TCT No. T-9926 and returned the property to complainants upon demand. 24 Instead of holding in trust
the property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name, (2) refused to return
the property to complainants, and (3) referred to complainants charges as malicious and untruthful.
Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should
have been mindful of the trust and confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are
illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them. Complainants engaged the services of
respondent in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property to his name.
Considering the depravity of respondents offense, the Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Violation of
Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross misconduct.25 Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member
of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court for gross misconduct.
In Hernandez v. Go,26 the Court disbarred a lawyer for transferring the titles over the properties of his client to his
name without the knowledge of his client. In Hernandez, the Court held that:
Considering the depravity of respondents offense, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. It bears
reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his clients financial plight to acquire the latters properties for his
own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Thus, for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross
misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of

the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers.27
A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is unfit
to be a lawyer.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law and ORDERS that his
name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all
courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.