This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case at bench, the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his client's property. He had, indeed, come into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he presented as security in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth P135,000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Rule 16.04. Complainant's acquiescence to the "pawning" of her jewelry becomes immaterial considering that the CPR is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from borrowing money or property from clients, unless the latter's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer's act of borrowing does not constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer used his client's jewelry in order to obtain, and then appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he had abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client. That he might have intended to subsequently pay his client the value of the jewelry is inconsequential. What deserves detestation was the very act of his exercising influence and persuasion over his client in order to gain undue benefits from the latter's property. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this "trust and confidence" is prone to abuse.[22] The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client.[23] The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.[24] Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or property from a client outside the limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that warrants sanction. | |||||
|
2004-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer should observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.[25] | |||||
|
2002-06-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is immaterial that respondent Tugade assisted Cayetano in the case as a mere friend or "kababayan" of the latter. In Junio v. Grupo,[22] respondent also denied the existence of a lawyer-client relationship, stating that complainant was a close personal friend whom he helped in a personal capacity. Nonetheless, it was held:To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. . . It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for: neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established. . . . In this case, Cayetano consulted respondent Tugade in his professional capacity in order to obtain advice concerning his appeal. Respondent agreed, as shown by his acceptance of the payment to him, his receipt of the TSNs of the case, and the fact that he signed the appellant's brief. His claim that he merely accepted payment but that he asked another lawyer to prepare the brief is an obvious subterfuge. He has not even named the lawyer assuming that the latter is real. It is hard to see why respondent should personally accept payment and the transcripts of stenographic notes from complainant if he did not intend to prepare the appellant's brief. Moreover, the fact that respondent filed a motion for reconsideration after the dismissal of the appeal only confirms that he was indeed Cayetano's lawyer. | |||||
|
2002-06-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the former's fees.[8] Hence, despite the fact that complainant was kumpadre of a law partner of respondent, and that respondent dispensed legal advice to complainant as a personal favor to the kumpadre, the lawyer was duty-bound to file the complaint he had agreed to prepare -- and had actually prepared -- at the soonest possible time, in order to protect the client's interest. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them. | |||||