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 the Rules of Court.
Attorneys Liens an attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his
client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such finds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent upon all judgements for the payment of money, and executions issued
in pursuance of such judgements which he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the
time when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of
the court rendering such judgement, or issuing such execution, and shall have caused written notice
thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and
power over such judgments and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the
payment of his fees and disbursements. (Sec, 37, Rule 138, RRC)
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in the legal matter he is handling for the client.

Attorneys lien is not an excuse for non-rendition of accounting

Cannot disburse clients money to clients creditors without authority.

Failure to deliver upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated the
funds for his own use to the prejudice of the client and in violation of the trust reposed in him.

Notify client if retaining lien shall be implemented

When a lawyer enforces a charging lien against his client, the client-lawyer relationship is
terminated.

The principle behind Rule 16.04 is to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence
over the client or to avoid acquiring a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 9390

August 1, 2012

EMILIA O. DHALIWAL, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Emilia O. Dhaliwal filed a complaint for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing.
In her sworn statement, complainant alleged that she engaged the services of
respondent in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land from Fil-Estate
Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate). On June 13, 2000, upon the instruction of
respondent, complainant's daughter and son-in-law withdrew P 342,000.00 from
the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and handed the cash over to respondent.
They then proceeded to BPI Family Bank Malcolm Square Branch where
respondent purchased two manager's checks in the amounts of P 58,631.94
and P 253,188.00 both payable to the order of Fil-Estate Inc. When asked why
the manager's checks were not purchased at PNB, respondent explained that he
has friends at the BPI Family Bank and that is where he maintains an account.
These manager's checks were subsequently consigned with the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) after complainants request to suspend
payments to Fil-Estate had been granted. On September 22, 2000, respondent,
on behalf of complainant, filed with the HLURB a complaint for delivery of title
and damages against Fil-Estate. A week after or on September 29, 2000, he
withdrew the two manager's checks that were previously consigned. On March 3,
2003, complainant informed the HLURB through a letter that respondent was no
longer representing her. On March 11, 2003, the HLURB promulgated its
Decision, adverse to complainant, finding the case for delivery of title and
damages premature as there was no evidence of full payment of the purchase

price. Thereafter, complainant made demands upon respondent to return and

account to her the amounts previously consigned with the HLURB. Respondent
did not comply. Thus, complainant prays that respondent be disbarred.
In his answer, respondent admitted substantially all of the allegations in the
complaint. In defense, he claims that the amount of P311,819.94 was consigned
to the HLURB to cover the full payment of the balance of the purchase price of
the lot with Fil-Estate. Fil-Estate, however, did not accept the same as it wanted
complainant to also pay interests and surcharges totalling more
than P 800,000.00. Because the amount was formally consigned with the
HLURB, he allegedly filed a motion1 to verify if the judgment in the case was
already satisfied. He claimed that his motion has not yet been acted upon;
hence, he did not deem it proper as yet to return the consigned amount.
Following the submission by complainant of her verified position paper and the
failure of respondent to submit his, despite having been given ample opportunity
to do so, the Commission on Bar Discipline, through Attorney Gerely C. Rico,
submitted its Report and Recommendation finding complainant to have
sufficiently established that respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It also found respondent to have submitted a false
and fabricated piece of documentary evidence, as the January 2004 Motion
attached to his answer as Annex A did not bear any proof of service upon the
opposing party and proof of filing with the HLURB. The Commission
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year. On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors
passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-93, adopting with modification the
Commission's Report and Recommendation, to wit:
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
Respondent's violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
his failure to return and account to complainant the amount previously consigned
with the HLURB despite demand, Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and Orderedto Return

the amount of P311,819.94 to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of
notice.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors in Resolution No. XX-2012-42.
The Court adopts the IBP's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as payment for the
balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land as in the present case, but not
used for the purpose, should be immediately returned.2 "A lawyer's failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the
trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality
as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment."3
Since respondent withdrew the consignation of the BPI managers checks in the
total amount of P 311,891.94 from the HLURB and the same was not used to
settle the balance of the purchase price of the parcel of land purchased by
complainant from Fil-Estate, then reimbursement with legal interest4 was properly
ordered by the IBP.
Respondent's proffered excuse of having to await the HLURB action on his
alleged motion-- the filing of which he miserably failed to prove-- as a condition to
the return of the sum of P 311 ,891.94 to complainant compounds his liability and
even bolstered his attitude to use dishonest means if only to evade his obligation.

It underlines his failure to meet the high moral standards required of members of
the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing is adjudged GUILTY of violating
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is also ordered to return to
complainant Emilia O. Dhaliwal, the amount of P311,819.94 with legal interest of
six percent (6%) per annum from the time of his receipt of the money on
September 29, 2000 up to the finality of this Resolution and twelve percent (12%)
per annum from finality thereof until paid.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
entered into respondents personal records as attorney. Copies shall likewise be
furnished the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 4562

June 15, 2005

DANIEL MORTERA, TERESITA MORTERA, FERDINAND MORTERA and LEO

MORTERA Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
How far may a lawyer go to ensure that he gets paid?
The answer to this question is stated clearly in Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers1and in decisions2 applying the same, but
it is apparently not plain enough to the respondent in this case. It therefore
behooves us to make an example of him for the improvement of the legal
profession.
This disbarment case originated from the execution of a judgment in a civil action
for "rescission of contracts with a prayer for prohibitory mandatory injunction."3
In brief, the complainants, then the plaintiffs, sued their mother, one Renato C.
Aguilar and one Philip Arnold Palmer Bradfield for the rescission of a contract of
sale. They secured judgment under which Aguilar was to pay themP155,000 for
the property, which this Court affirmed.4
On April 15, 1994, respondent did the unthinkable. Under a secret agreement
with Aguilar, he accepted P150,000 from the latter as partial payment of the
judgment sum, issuing a receipt for the amount.5 He then deposited the money in
his personal bank account without the knowledge of complainants.6 Until now,
respondent adamantly refuses to surrender the money to complainants, despite
the successive Orders of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.7
For his part, respondent, in his comment8 admits his secret agreement with and
receipt of the money from Aguilar, interposing as his defense the fact that the
complainants and their mother owed him the money he appropriated for services
previously rendered. They would not have paid him his fees had he not done
what he did.9 In support of his argument, the respondent narrated his years of

service as counsel for the complainants and their mother. He alleged the
amounts they owed him although he presented no evidence of any agreement
between him and the complainants for the exact amount of his compensation.
Respondents responsibility to the complainants is unequivocally stated in
Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The four rules
governing this situation were: he owed candor to his clients;10 he was bound to
account for whatever money he received for and from them;11 as a lawyer, he was
obligated to keep his own money separate from that of his clients;12 and, although
he was entitled to a lien over the funds in order to satisfy his lawful fees,13 he was
also bound to give prompt notice to his clients of such liens and to deliver the
funds to them upon demand or when due.
Respondent violated each and every one of these rules.
Respondent cited the need to protect the money from other persons claiming to
be heirs of Eusebio Montera14 and from the volatile temperament of the
complainants15 but did not present any evidence at all to prove either claim. Thus,
these claims should be ignored.
Because the respondent admitted concealing his clients money, the only
question in our minds is how severe his punishment should be.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines resolved16 to
suspend the respondent for one year.
We do not agree.
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.
In disposing of that case, we said:
Respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally, as lawyers lien, the
sum of P250,000, as attorneys fees. In fact, he did not adduce any proof of such
agreement. His mere allegation or claim is not proof. Obviously, his failure to
return the money to complainants upon demand gave rise to the presumption

that he misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. His act of

holding on to their money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack
of integrity and propriety. He was clinging to something not his and to which he
had no right.
As a penalty for his infraction, Atty. Pujalte was suspended for a year.
However, in the more recent case of de Guzman Buado and Lising v.
Layag18 which involved a violation of Canons 15, 16 and 17, the Court En
Banc imposed the much heavier penalty of indefinite suspension.
In that case, Atty. Eufracio Layag, the lawyer of the complainants Lising and de
Guzman, successfully prosecuted a case against Inland Trailways, Inc. (Inland).
Pursuant to the judgment, Inland issued three checks, one payable to Layag, one
payable to Lising and one payable to de Guzman who had already passed away
by then. Layag received all three checks from the deputy sheriff but did not
inform the complainants. He then gave them to one Marie Paz Gonzales for
encashment on the strength of a special power of attorney (SPA) purportedly
executed by the late de Guzman appointing her as his attorney-in-fact. This SPA
authorized Gonzales to encash any check or bill of exchange received in
settlement of the case. Even after complainants learned of the issuance of the
checks two years later and demanded delivery of the proceeds, Layag refused to
do so.
In imposing upon Layag the penalty of indefinite suspension, the Court En
Banc considered his years of experience as a lawyer, his ignorance of the law,
specifically the Civil Code, and his violation of not one but three Canons.
Even though, on its face, this case has more in common with Pujalte than
with Layag, a one-year suspension seems too lenient for a number of reasons.
First, the respondent in this case has been a practicing lawyer since 197419 and
even runs his own small law firm. For all his vast experience, however, he claims
that he has done nothing wrong by concealing and withholding his clients money
from them.20 Coming from a seasoned practitioner of the law, this attitude is
inexcusable.
lawphil.net

Second, the respondent had other means of recovering his fees, having filed a
case for that purpose which was, however, dismissed for his failure to properly

implead an indispensable party.21 In short, having botched his own effort to

recover his fees, he sought to simply subvert both law and proper procedure by
holding on to the money.
Clearly, the respondents actuations were thoroughly tainted with bad faith, deceit
and utter contempt of his sworn duty as a lawyer. Thus, a heavier penalty than a
mere one-year suspension is definitely called for.
WHEREFORE, the IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XV-2002-223 in
Administrative Case No. 4562, finding respondent liable for violation of Canon 16
of the Code of Professional Responsibility is hereby AFFIRMED with
theMODIFICATION that instead of a one-year suspension, Atty. Renato B.
Pagatpatan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years.
Respondent is further directed to turn over to the complainants, within five (5)
days from receipt of this resolution, the P150,000 he received in their behalf.
Respondent is also ORDERED to report to the Office of the Bar Confidant his
compliance herewith within 15 days from such compliance.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of Atty. Renato
B. Pagatpatan and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7965

November 13, 2013

AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Courts resolution is an administrative complaint filed by Azucena
Segovia-Ribaya (complainant) against Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin (respondent),
the antecedents of which are detailed as follows:
1

The Facts
On November 18, 2005, the parties entered into a retainership
agreement (retainer) whereby respondent undertook to, inter alia process the
registration and eventually deliver, within a period of six (6 ) months, the
certificate of title over a certain parcel of land (subject land) in favor of
complainant acting as the representative of the Heirs of the late Isabel Segovia.
In connection therewith, respondent received from complainant the amounts
of P15,000.00 andP39,000.00 to cover for the litigation and land registration
expenses, respectively.
2

Notwithstanding the expenditure of the P39,000.00 given for registration

expenses (subject amount) and the lapse of more than three (3) years from the
retainers date, complainant alleged that respondent, without proper explanation,
failed to fulfill his undertaking to register the subject land and deliver to
complainant the certificate of title over the same. As complainant was tired of
respondents excuses, she finally decided to just withdraw the subject amount
from respondent. For such purpose, she confronted the latter at his office and
also subsequently sent him two (2) demand letters, but all to no avail. Hence,
complainant was prompted to file the instant administrative complaint.
5

In his Comment, respondent admitted that he indeed received the subject

amount from complainant but averred that after receiving the same, the latters
brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount of P7,500.00 which the
latter purportedly paid to the land surveyor. Respondent likewise alleged that he
7

later found out that he could not perform his undertaking under the retainer
because the ownership of the subject land was still under litigation. Finally,
respondent stated that he wanted to return the balance of the subject amount to
complainant after deducting what Erlindo took from him, but was only prevented
to do so because he was maligned by complainant when she went to his office
and there, shouted and called him names in the presence of his staff.
9

10

In the Courts Resolutions dated December 17, 2008 and March 2, 2009, the
case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report, and recommendation. After both parties failed to appear during the
mandatory conference, IBP Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B.
Hababag (Investigating Commissioner) required the parties to submit their
respective position papers. Complainant filed her position paper on October 8,
2009, while respondent failed to do so.
11

13

12

14

The IBPs Report and Recommendation

On November 6, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and
Recommendation, finding respondent to have violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) for his failure to
properly account for the money entrusted to him without any adequate
explanation why he could not return the same. The Investigating Commissioner
found that respondents acts demonstrated his "lack of candor, fairness, and
loyalty to his client, who entrusted him with money and documents for the
registration of the subject land." The Investigating Commissioner likewise held
that respondents failure to return the subject amount, despite being given
"adequate time to return" the same, "not to mention the repeated x x x demands
made upon him," constitutes "gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even
misappropriation of money" in violation of the above-stated rules. In view of the
foregoing, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
15

16

17

18

19

20

In a Resolution dated December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the Investigating Commissioners Report and Recommendation
with modification, ordering the return of the amount of P31,500.00, with legal
interest and within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, to complainant.
21

22

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code.
The Courts Ruling
The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP anent respondents
administrative liability but deems it proper to: (a) extend the recommended period
of suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year; and
(b) delete the recommended order for the return of the amount of P31,500.00.
Anent respondents administrative liability, the Court agrees with the IBP that
respondents failure to properly account for and duly return his clients money
despite due demand is tantamount to a violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03,
Canon 16 of the Code which respectively read as follows:
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 16.03 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.
1wphi1

Records disclose that respondent admitted the receipt of the subject amount
from complainant to cover for pertinent registration expenses but posited his
failure to return the same due to his clients act of confronting him at his office
wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being
established, it was then respondents obligation to return the money entrusted to
him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state that complainants purported
act of "maligning" respondent does not justify the latters failure to properly
account for and return his clients money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyers
duty to his client is one essentially imbued with trust so much so that it is

incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful
compliance. In this case, despite that singular encounter, respondent had
thereafter all the opportunity to return the subject amount but still failed to do so.
Besides, the obligatory force of said duty should not be diluted by the
temperament or occasional frustrations of the lawyers client, especially so when
the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyers work. Indeed, a lawyer must deal
with his client with professional maturity and commit himself towards the
objective fulfillment of his responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the
correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly account for his affairs as well
as to ensure the smooth turn-over of the case to another lawyer. Except only for
the retaining lien exception under Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code, the lawyer
should not withhold the property of his client. Unfortunately, absent the
applicability of such exception or any other justifiable reason therefor, respondent
still failed to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the
Code which perforce warrants his administrative liability.
23

The Court, however, deems it proper to increase the IBPs recommended period
of suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year in view
of his concomitant failure to exercise due diligence in handling his clients cause
as mandated by Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code:
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court observes that respondent did
not only accomplish his undertaking under the retainer, but likewise failed to give
an adequate explanation for such non-performance despite the protracted length
of time given for him to do so. As such omissions equally showcase respondents
non-compliance with the standard of proficiency required of a lawyer as
embodied in the above-cited rules, the Court deems it apt to extend the period of
his suspension from the practice of law from six (6) months to one (1) year
similar to the penalty imposed in the case of Del Mundo v. Capistrano.
24

As a final point, the Court must clarify that the foregoing resolution should not
include a directive for the return of the amount of P31,500.00 as recommended
by the IBP Board of Governors. The same amount was given by complainant to
respondent to cover for registration expenses; hence, its return partakes the
nature of a purely civil liability which should not be dealt with during an
administrative-disciplinary proceeding. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias, the Court
recently held that its "findings during administrative-disciplinary proceedings have
no bearing on the liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature
meaning, those liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's
professional engagement as the same should be threshed out in a proper
proceeding of such nature." This pronouncement the Court applies to this case
and thus, renders a disposition solely on respondents administrative liability.
25

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin is found guilty of violating

Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt of
this Resolution with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all the courts.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 6672

September 4, 2009

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan
Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, convinced his clients2 to transfer legal representation. Respondent
promised them financial assistance3 and expeditious collection on their claims.4To
induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit5 of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client
relations with complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange
for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached "respondents" calling card:6
Front

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr.
Rm. M-01
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
Grace Park, Caloocan City

Tel: 362-7820
Fax: (632)
362-7821
Cel.: (0926)
2701719

Back

SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
1avvphi1

(emphasis supplied)
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing
and circulation of the said calling card.7
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.8
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and
recommendation,9 found that respondent had encroached on the professional
practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.0210 and other canons11of the Code of

Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against

soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in
Section 27, Rule 13812 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that
respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a
heavier penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we
modify the recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into
complainants professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the
means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct
themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the
manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of
the CPR provides:
CANON 3 - A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares.13 To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill
is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service
to which every member of the bar is called.14
Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:
RULE 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily
to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers.15 Such actuation constitutes
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.16
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which
provides:
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause.

This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of
legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment)17 as a measure to protect the community from barratry and
champerty.18
Complainant presented substantial evidence19 (consisting of the sworn
statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to
respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal business as
well as profited from referrals suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later
admitted it during the mandatory hearing.
Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos
word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule
2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.
1avvphi1

With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule
that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services.20 Again the Court notes that respondent never denied having these
seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos "referrals."
Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office.21Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He
cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers,
respondent violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as
filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or
premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the
free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.22 It seeks to ensure
his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion
and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in
connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the
subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.23Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that
of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to
the clients cause.24
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice25 which
calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of antisolicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a
prospective client for the purpose of obtaining employment.26 Thus, in this
jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian
machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession.
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the
prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a
mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly
incommensurate to its findings.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A
lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers
are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists
or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyers name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.28

Labianos calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The
phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to
change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. Money
was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking
advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This crass
commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the
legal profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his
culpability, the Court is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and
directly responsible for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03,
2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the
practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of
this resolution. He isSTERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator to be circulated to
all courts.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 5082

February 17, 2004

MILAGROS N. ALDOVINO, VIRGILIO NICODEMUS, ANGELA N. DELA CRUZ,

JULITA N. SOCO, MAGDALENA N. TALENS and TEODORO S.
NICODEMUS, complainants
vs.
ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE, JR., respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment and/or disciplinary action1 against Atty. Pedro
C. Pujalte, Jr. filed by Milagros Nicodemus-Aldovino, Virgilio Nicodemus, Angela
Nicodemus-dela Cruz, Julita Nicodemus-Soco, Magdalena Nicodemus-Talens
and Teodoro S. Nicodemus for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainants alleged in their complaint that they are brothers and sisters and
heirs of Arcadia Nicodemus. Sometime in March, 1995, they hired the services of
respondent Atty. Pujalte, Jr. as their counsel in Civil Case No. 95-46 filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Lucena City. The suit was for specific
performance with damages to compel their sister, Loreto Nicodemus Pulumbarit,
to deliver to them their shares in the estate of their deceased mother.
On November 9, 1998 the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, FROM THE FOREGOING, the court finds for the defendant
Loreto Pulumbarit and accordingly orders the dismissal of the case with costs
against plaintiffs and orders the Branch Clerk of Court of this branch, upon finality
of this decision to withdraw from Savings Account No. 435-527745-9 at the
Philippine National Bank and to deliver the proceeds to all the heirs of Arcadia

Nicodemus upon proper receipt. Both counsels are directed to oversee the
distribution and for them to jointly file their manifestation on the matter."2
Accordingly, on December 1, 1998, Branch Clerk of Court Angelo A. Serdon
withdrew from the Philippine National Bank the sum of P1,335,109.68 under
Savings Account No. 435-527745-9.
In the presence of defendant Mrs. Loreto N. Pulumbarit and respondent counsel,
Branch Clerk of Court Serdon divided the withdrawn amount into eight shares of
P166,888.71 each. He gave the defendant two shares. Then he handed the
remaining amount of P1,001,332.26, corresponding to six shares, to respondent
upon his representation that he is authorized to receive the money and to
oversee the distribution to complainants of their respective shares.
However, complainants did not receive their shares from respondent despite
repeated demands. Thus, they engaged the services of Atty. Francisco I. Chavez
who, on December 17, 1998, sent a letter to respondent demanding that the
amount of P1,001,332.26 entrusted to him by the Branch Clerk of Court be
turned over to complainants.
On December 21, 1998, respondent wired Atty. Chavez that he will deliver to
complainants their respective shares "tomorrow morning."
What respondent delivered to herein complainants was only P751,332.26,
instead of P1,001,332.26 because he deducted P250,000.00 therefrom. He
claimed that this amount is his attorneys fees per his agreement with Milagros
Aldovino, complainants representative. On February 23, 1999, Atty. Chavez
again wired respondent demanding that he return to complainants the amount of
P236,000.00. As explained by Atty. Chavez in his telegram, respondent could
retain only P14,000.00 (not P250,000.00), which amount is in addition to the
P86,000.00 initially paid to him by complainants as his attorneys fees. According
to complainants, the sum of P100,000.00 (P86,000.00 plus P14,000.00) is more
than the amount of attorneys fees agreed upon by the parties. Still, respondent
failed to return to complainants the amount of P236,000.00, which is the balance
after deducting P14,000.00 from P250,000.00.
In his comment dated September 3, 1999, respondent admitted that he received
from the Branch Clerk of Court "P1,335,109.68" representing complainants
shares. Thereafter, he waited for complainants Virgilio and Teodoro Nicodemus

and Engr. Isidro Aureada at the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Quezon where he

had a hearing, but they did not come.
To disprove deceit on his part, he attached to his comment his letter dated
December 2, 1998 to Engr. Isidro Aureada3 informing the latter that he waited for
those complainants in order to give them the money.
Respondent claimed that there is a verbal agreement between him and Milagros
Aldovino, representative of complainants, that they will pay him P250,000.00 as
his attorneys fees. Consequently, he deducted and retained this amount from the
money delivered to him by the Branch Clerk of Court. At any rate, he wrote
complainants on December 23, 1998 regarding this matter.4
In her Report dated March 10, 2003,5 IBP Commissioner Rebecca VillanuevaMaala made the following findings and recommendation:
"xxx. In the case at bar, after respondent got hold of the entire settlement
amount, he did not immediately turn over the said amount to the complainants
who had to look and search for him. It was only when respondent was threatened
with a legal action (Estafa, docketed as Grim. Case No. 99-1017, RTC Br. 58,
Lucena City) that he decided to return the balance of the settlement amount but
after deducting P250,000.00 which he claims to be his attorneys fees.
Complainants alleged that they have already paid respondent the amount of
P86,000.00 which was more than double the agreed upon professional fees.
Complainants even agreed to pay an additional P14.000.00 to complete the
amount of P100,000.00 but there was no agreement to the effect that respondent
will be paid P250,000.00. Respondent unilaterally appropriated the amount of
P250,000.00 without the conformity of complainants. The lawyer is allowed to
apply so much of the funds as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursement subject to the condition that he shall promptly notify his client (Rule
16.03, CPR). The lawyer cannot unilaterally appropriate for himself the money of
his client for payment of his attorneys fees which the client owes to the former
(Cabigao vs. Rodrigo, 57 Phil 20; Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491).
"PREMISES CONSIDERED, we find respondent to have violated Canon 16 and
16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommends that he be
suspended for the period of one (1) year from the practice of his profession as a
lawyer and as a member of the Bar."

On June 21, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors, Pasig City, passed Resolution
No. XV-2003-347 adopting and approving the Report of IBP Commissioner
Maala.
We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding that respondent
violated Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility and suspending him from
the practice of law for one (1) year.
Canon 16 and its Rule 16.03 provide:
"CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
"x x x x x x x x x
"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."
Respondent should have complied with the above provisions. When
complainants demanded that the sum of P1,001,332.26 be delivered to them, he
should have heeded promptly. Had they not hired a lawyer and charged him with
estafa, he would not have turned over the money to them. While it may be true
that he has "a lien over the funds," he should have notified complainants about it
in due time.
Respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyers lien,6 the
sum of P250,000.00. As found by IBP Commissioner Maala, there was no
agreement between him and complainants that he could retain P250,000.00 as
attorneys fees. In fact, he did not adduce any proof of such agreement. His mere
allegation or claim is not proof.7 Obviously, his failure to return the money to
complainants upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated
it in violation of the trust reposed on him.8 His act of holding on to their money
without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of, integrity and
propriety.9 He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.10

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 profession11 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.12 Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege.13 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.14 Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a
member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pedro C. Pujalte, Jr. is hereby declared guilty of
violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective
immediately. He is ordered to return the sum of P236,000.00 to complainants
within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, (Chairman), Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.