Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Digest Sison vs. Atty. Valdez

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    Respondent, a lawyer, received a total of P215,000 from a complainant to file a case against parties who failed to construct the complainant's house on time. However, respondent failed to render legal services, update the complainant on the case status, and return the funds when the legal services were terminated. This violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, which require lawyers to account for and return client funds upon demand. The court found respondent administratively liable for failing to return the money despite demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Sison vs. Atty. Valdez

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    133 views1 page
    Respondent, a lawyer, received a total of P215,000 from a complainant to file a case against parties who failed to construct the complainant's house on time. However, respondent failed to render legal services, update the complainant on the case status, and return the funds when the legal services were terminated. This violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, which require lawyers to account for and return client funds upon demand. The court found respondent administratively liable for failing to return the money despite demands.

    Original Description:

    PALE

    Original Title

    68. Digest Sison vs. Atty. Valdez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent, a lawyer, received a total of P215,000 from a complainant to file a case against parties who failed to construct the complainant's house on time. However, respondent failed to render legal services, update the complainant on the case status, and return the funds when the legal services were terminated. This violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, which require lawyers to account for and return client funds upon demand. The court found respondent administratively liable for failing to return the money despite demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    133 views1 page

    Digest Sison vs. Atty. Valdez

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    Respondent, a lawyer, received a total of P215,000 from a complainant to file a case against parties who failed to construct the complainant's house on time. However, respondent failed to render legal services, update the complainant on the case status, and return the funds when the legal services were terminated. This violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, which require lawyers to account for and return client funds upon demand. The court found respondent administratively liable for failing to return the money despite demands.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    68. Sison vs. Atty.

    Valdez

    Facts:
    Sometime in September 2012, complainant, an overseas Filipino worker in Australia, engaged
    respondent's legal services to file an action against Engr. Eddie S. Pua of B.S. Pua
    Construction (old contractor) and the project manager, Engr. Dario Antonio (project manager),
    for failing to construct complainant's house in Nuvali, Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna in due
    time.[3] Although no written agreement was executed between the parties specifying the scope
    of legal services, respondent received the total amount of P215,000.00 from complainant,
    through Sarabia, on three (3) separate dates.[4] Respondent acknowledged receipt of the first
    two (2) installments in a handwritten note, stating that the amount of P165,000.00 was for
    litigation expenses, i.e., attorney's fees, filing fees, bond, and other expenses.[5] The last
    payment was deposited online to the bank account of respondent's wife, Ma. Analyn M.
    Valdez.[6]

    On January 8, 2013, complainant terminated respondent's legal services via e-mail and text
    messages[7] with a demand to return the amount given, which was not heeded notwithstanding
    several demands. Hence, complainant, through Sarabia, filed the instant disbarment complaint
    before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) - Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD),
    alleging that despite receipt of her payments: (a) respondent failed to render his legal services
    and update her regarding the status of the case; (b) commingled her money with that of
    respondent's wife; (c) misappropriated her money by failing to issue a receipt for the last
    installment of the payment received; and (d) fabricated documents to justify retention of her
    money.[8]

    Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated rules 16.01 and 16.03 , canon 16 of the CPR?

    Ruling: Yes.

    The Court likewise finds that respondent violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR,
    which respectively read:
    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. x x x.
    The highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship imposes on a lawyer the duty to
    account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.[43] Money
    entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the filing and processing of a case, if
    not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand.[44] His failure to return gives rise to a
    presumption that he has appropriated it for his own use, and the conversion of funds entrusted
    to him constitutes a gross violation of his professional obligation under Canon 16 of the
    CPR.[45]

    In this case, respondent failed to account for the money received from complainant when he
    only acknowledged receipt of P165,000.00 for litigation expenses despite admittedly receiving
    P215,000.00. When complainant terminated his legal services, the fact that no case has been
    filed in court should have prompted him to immediately return to complainant the amounts
    intended as filing and bond fees, as these were obviously unutilized.

    In fact, respondent admitted that, based on his belief, he was entitled to only P65,000.00 as
    compensation for his legal services.[46] As such, he should have returned the excess amount of
    P150,000.00 out of the P215,000.00 he received from complainant. Notably, Rule 16.03 of the
    CPR allows a lawyer to retain the amount necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
    disbursements.[47] Hence, respondent's persistent refusal to return the money to complainant
    despite several demands renders him administratively liable.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy