Lawyerly

AC.No. 9154

2012-03-19

MENDOZA, J.

This Court will not tolerate such acts. Atty. Gomez has no right to unilaterally retain his lawyer's lien.[11] Having obtained the funds in the course of his professional employment, Atty. Gomez had the obligation to account and deliver such funds to his client when they became due, or upon demand. Moreover, there was no agreement between him and complainant that he could deduct therefrom his claimed attorney's fees.

AC. NO. 7204

2007-03-07

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.[6] In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr.,[7] we emphasized that:This Court has been exacting in its 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 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. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.[8] We explained in Barrientos v. Daarol[9] that, "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community."

AC. NO. 7021

2007-02-21

MELVIN D. SMALL v. ATTY. JERRY BANARES

CARPIO, J.

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. Respondent's 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]

AC. NO. 5417

2006-03-31

AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR v. ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent failed to comply with the above provisions. Records show and as found by Investigating Commissioner, respondent committed deceit by making it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to collect the money judgment awarded to the former. Worse, after receiving from the NLRC cashier the check amounting to P99,490.00, he retained the amount. It was only when complainant reported the matter to the NBI that respondent paid him P40,000.00 as partial payment of the "award." In fact, there still remains an outstanding balance of P10,000.00. Moreover, as correctly found by IBP Commissioner Maala, respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally his lawyer's lien[12] by dividing the money into 60-40 ratio. Obviously, such conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.[13] He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.

AC. NO. 6651

2006-02-27

EDUARDO P. MENESES v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO

CARPIO, J.

Respondent's 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] Respondent's unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.[27]

AC. NO. 4562

2005-06-15

DANIEL MORTERA v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN

CORONA, J.

In Aldovino v. Pujalte,[17] respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte similarly faced disbarment charges for having withheld his clients' money in violation of Canon 16. Pujalte alleged a lien for his fees over the contested amount but adduced no evidence of this supposed lien.

AC. No. 4566

2004-12-10

UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ATTY. DANILO G. MACALINO

GARCIA, J.

Respondent's wanton failure to make an accounting and to return to his client the amount entrusted to him upon demand give rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it, in violation of the trust and confidence reposed on him. His act of holding on to complainant's money without its acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.[18] A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.[19]

AC. No. 5041

2004-11-23

SALVADOR G. VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. RAMON F. ISHIWATA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

P225,000.00 - Total amount received from J.T. Transport Less: P22,500.00 - Representing the allowable 10% attorney's fees P199,500.00 - Amount due to complainant Less: P45,000.00 - Actual amount paid to complainant P154,500.00 - Total balance which respondent should pay complainant The IBP Board of Governors' recommended penalty of one (1) year is in order. In a recent case[10] wherein respondent lawyer failed to deliver to his clients the sum of P236,000.00 awarded to them by the trial court, we imposed upon him suspension from the practice of law for one year.

AC. No. 5151

2004-10-19

PEDRO G. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We must rule in the same wise in this case before us. The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman who is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral character. Respondent should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession.[20] In Aldovino vs. Pujalte, Jr.,[21] we emphasized that:This Court has been exacting in its 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 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.

AC. No. 5554

2004-06-29

LUIS DE GUZMAN v. ATTY. EMMANUEL M. BASA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

To our mind, respondent's dereliction of duty amounts to gross misconduct. Certainly, he misused the judicial processes and abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by complainant. We have consistently held that a lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to disciplinary action.[22] Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.[23] We have been exacting in our expectations for the members of the Bar to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.[24]

AC. No. 4914

2004-03-03

SPS. JENELINE DONATO AND MARIO DONATO v. ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.[3] We have been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar.[4] We expect them at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[5] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.[6]

	AC.No. 9154 2012-03-19	AURORA D. CERDAN v. ATTY. CARLO GOMEZ MENDOZA, J.
This Court will not tolerate such acts. Atty. Gomez has no right to unilaterally retain his lawyer's lien.[11] Having obtained the funds in the course of his professional employment, Atty. Gomez had the obligation to account and deliver such funds to his client when they became due, or upon demand. Moreover, there was no agreement between him and complainant that he could deduct therefrom his claimed attorney's fees.
	AC. NO. 7204 2007-03-07	CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.[6] In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr.,[7] we emphasized that:This Court has been exacting in its 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 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. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.[8] We explained in Barrientos v. Daarol[9] that, "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community."
	AC. NO. 7021 2007-02-21	MELVIN D. SMALL v. ATTY. JERRY BANARES CARPIO, J.
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. Respondent's 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]
	AC. NO. 5417 2006-03-31	AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR v. ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent failed to comply with the above provisions. Records show and as found by Investigating Commissioner, respondent committed deceit by making it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him (respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to collect the money judgment awarded to the former. Worse, after receiving from the NLRC cashier the check amounting to P99,490.00, he retained the amount. It was only when complainant reported the matter to the NBI that respondent paid him P40,000.00 as partial payment of the "award." In fact, there still remains an outstanding balance of P10,000.00. Moreover, as correctly found by IBP Commissioner Maala, respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally his lawyer's lien[12] by dividing the money into 60-40 ratio. Obviously, such conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.[13] He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.
	AC. NO. 6651 2006-02-27	EDUARDO P. MENESES v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO CARPIO, J.
Respondent's 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] Respondent's unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.[27]
	AC. NO. 4562 2005-06-15	DANIEL MORTERA v. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN CORONA, J.
In Aldovino v. Pujalte,[17] respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte similarly faced disbarment charges for having withheld his clients' money in violation of Canon 16. Pujalte alleged a lien for his fees over the contested amount but adduced no evidence of this supposed lien.
	AC. No. 4566 2004-12-10	UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ATTY. DANILO G. MACALINO GARCIA, J.
Respondent's wanton failure to make an accounting and to return to his client the amount entrusted to him upon demand give rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it, in violation of the trust and confidence reposed on him. His act of holding on to complainant's money without its acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.[18] A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his client.[19]
	AC. No. 5041 2004-11-23	SALVADOR G. VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. RAMON F. ISHIWATA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
P225,000.00 - Total amount received from J.T. Transport Less: P22,500.00 - Representing the allowable 10% attorney's fees P199,500.00 - Amount due to complainant Less: P45,000.00 - Actual amount paid to complainant P154,500.00 - Total balance which respondent should pay complainant The IBP Board of Governors' recommended penalty of one (1) year is in order. In a recent case[10] wherein respondent lawyer failed to deliver to his clients the sum of P236,000.00 awarded to them by the trial court, we imposed upon him suspension from the practice of law for one year.
	AC. No. 5151 2004-10-19	PEDRO G. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We must rule in the same wise in this case before us. The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman who is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral character. Respondent should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession.[20] In Aldovino vs. Pujalte, Jr.,[21] we emphasized that:This Court has been exacting in its 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 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.
	AC. No. 5554 2004-06-29	LUIS DE GUZMAN v. ATTY. EMMANUEL M. BASA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
To our mind, respondent's dereliction of duty amounts to gross misconduct. Certainly, he misused the judicial processes and abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by complainant. We have consistently held that a lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty subjects him to disciplinary action.[22] Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.[23] We have been exacting in our expectations for the members of the Bar to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence of the public.[24]
	AC. No. 4914 2004-03-03	SPS. JENELINE DONATO AND MARIO DONATO v. ATTY. ISAIAH B. ASUNCION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.[3] We have been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar.[4] We expect them at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[5] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.[6]

MILAGROS N. ALDOVINO v. ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE