26. Andrada v.

Cera (2015)

Facts:

Complainant sought the services of the respondent for an annulment case. To proceed with the filing of the case,
the complainant must submit NSO birth certificates for her children, which does not exist yet because her husband
failed to accomplish it for their two children. Complainant gave money to the respondent to arrange the process of
acquiring the birth certificates needed, and an additional ten thousand pesos (10,000php) as payment for a
psychological test needed for the annulment case. After failing to show a receipt from the NSO, the complainant
demanded from the respondent through a letter to surrender the receipt from NSO and the return of the
10,000php. After the failure of the respondent to heed the demand, the complainant filed an administrative
complaint against the respondent with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). For the dismissal of the estafa
case filed against the respondent, he must return 17,280php to the complainant and to secure the birth
certificates of her children. Respondent has returned the money but failed to procure the birth certificates. IBP
found that the respondent had engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct against his client’s
interest in violation of Canon 1 of the CPR, and found the respondent guilty of misappropriating the funds
entrusted to him by his client and of failing to account for and to return his client’s money upon demand, in
violation of Canon 16 of the CPR.

Issue:

Whether or not the return of the money can mitigate the sanctions to be given by the IBP. No.

Ruling:

The respondent’s actions show negligence and lack of zeal in handling the complainant’s case, for which he should
be made administratively liable. He violated not only Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits a lawyer
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, but also Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the same
Code, which provides that “a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.” Moreover, the respondent failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer
when he unlawfully withheld the complainant’s money. The respondent’s restitution cannot serve to mitigate his
administrative liability as he returned the complainant’s money not voluntarily but for fear of possible criminal
liability.