CBD A.C. No. 313.

January 30, 1998]

ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, for and in behalf of PAN-ASIA INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES, INC., complainant, vs.
ATTY. ROSENDO MENESES III, respondent.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This administrative case against respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses III was initiated by a complaint-affidavit[1] filed
by Atty. Augusto G. Navarro on June 7, 1994 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (hereinafter, the Commission), for and in behalf of Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc. Herein
complainant charges respondent Meneses with the following offenses, viz.: (1) malpractice and gross misconduct
unbecoming a public defender; (2) dereliction of duty, by violating his oath to do everything within his power to
protect his clients interest; (3) willful abandonment; and (4) loss of trust and confidence, due to his continued failure
to account for the amount of P50,000.00 entrusted to him to be paid to a certain complainant for the amicable
settlement of a pending case.[2]
The complaint-affidavit alleged that Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc., a group of companies which
includes Pan Asia International Commodities, Inc., through its Administrative Manager Estrellita Valdez, engaged the
legal services of respondent Atty. Meneses. While serving as such counsel, Atty. Meneses handled various cases and was
properly compensated by his client in accordance with their retainer agreement. [3] One of the litigations handled by
him was the case of People vs. Lai Chan Kow, a.k.a. Wilson Lai, and Arthur Bretaa, pending before Branch 134,
Regional Trial Court of Makati. On December 24. 1993, respondent received the sum of P50,000.00 from Arthur Bretaa,
the accused in said case, to be given to therein offended party, a certain Gleason, as consideration for an out-of-court
settlement and with the understanding that a motion to dismiss the case would be filed by respondent Meneses.
Despite subsequent repeated requests, respondent failed to present to his client the receipt acknowledging that
Gleason received said amount. A verification made with the Regional Trial Court of Makati revealed that no motion to
dismiss or any pleading in connection therewith had been filed, and the supposed amicable settlement was not
finalized and concluded.Despite repeated demands in writing or by telephone for an explanation, as well as the
turnover of all documents pertaining to the aforementioned case, respondent Meneses deliberately ignored the pleas of
herein complainant.
The case was assigned by the Commission to Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez for investigation. Respondent was
thereafter ordered to submit his answer to the complaint pursuant to Section 5, rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.[4] Two
successive ex parte motions for extension of time to file an answer were filed by respondent and granted by the
Commission.[5] On November 14, 1994, respondent filed a motion to dismiss,[6] instead of an answer.
In said motion, respondent argued that Atty. Navarro had no legal personality to sue him for and in behalf of Pan-
Asia International Commodities, Inc. because his legal services were retained by Frankwell Management and
Consultant, Inc.; that Navarro had not represented Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc. in any case nor had been
authorized by its board ofdirectors to file this disbarment case against respondent; that the retainer agreement
between him and Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc. had been terminated as of December 31, 1993 according
to the verbal advice of its Administrative Officer Estrellita Valdez; that the case of Arthur Bretaa was not part of their
retainer agreement, and Bretaa was not an employee of Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc. which retained
him as its legal counsel; and that the settlement of said case cannot be concluded because the same was archived and
accused Bretaa is presently out of the country.
Herein complainant, in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, [7] stresses that respondent Meneses is resorting to
technicalities to evade the issue of his failure to account for the amount of P 50,000.00 entrusted to him; that the
respondents arguments in his motion to dismiss were all designed to mislead the Commission; and that he was fully
aware of the interrelationship of the two corporations and always coordinated his legal work with Estrellita Valdez.
On November 28, 1994, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez resolved to deny said motion to dismiss for
lack of merit and directed respondent to file his answer.[8] On January 2, 1995, respondent filed a manifestation that
he was adopting the allegations in his motion to dismiss his answer.[9] When the case was set for hearing on February 9,
1995, respondent failed to attend despite due notice. He thereafter moved to postpone and reset the hearing of the
case several times allegedly due to problems with his health.
On the scheduled hearing on June 15, 1995, respondent again failed to attend. The commissioner accordingly
received an ex parte the testimony of complainants sole witness, Estrellita Valdez, and other documentary
evidence.[10] Thereafter, complainant rested its case. Respondent filed a so-called Urgent Ex-parte Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Recall Complainants Witness for Cross-Examination[11] which was granted by the
Commission.[12] Estrellita Valdez was directed by the Commission to appear on the scheduled hearing for cross-
examination.
Several postponement and resetting of hearings were later requested and granted by the Commission. When the
case was set for hearing for the last time on May 31, 1996, respondent failed to attend despite due notice and
repeated warnings. Consequently, the Commission considered him to have waived his right to present evidence in his
defense and declared the case submitted for resolution.[13]
On February 4, 1997, the Commission on Bar Discipline, through its Investigating Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez, submitted its Report and Recommendation [14] to the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. The Commission ruled that the refusal and/or failure of respondent to account for the sum of P50,000.00
he received from complainant for the settlement of the aforestated case of Lai Chan Kow and Arthur Bretaa proves
beyond any shadow of a doubt that he misappropriated the same, hence he deserved to be penalized.
The Commission recommended that respondent Meneses he suspended from the practice of the legal profession
for a period of three (3) years and directed to return the P50,000.00 he received from the petitioner within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the resolution. It further provided that failure on his part to comply with such requirement would
result in his disbarment.[15] The Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in its Resolution No. XII-97-133, dated July 26, 1997.[16]
On August 15, 1997, the Court received the Notice of Resolution, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, and the records of this case through the Office of the Bar Confidant for final action
pursuant to Section 12 (b) of Rule 139-B.[17] It appears therefrom that respondent was duly furnished a copy of said
resolution, with the investigating commissioners report and recommendation annexed thereto.
The Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that respondent
Meneses misappropriated the money entrusted to him and which he has failed and/or refused to account for to his
client despite repeated demands therefor. Such conduct on the part of respondent indicating his unfitness for the
confidence and trust reposed on him, or showing such lack of personal honesty or of good moral character as to render
him unworthy of public confidence, constitutes a ground for disciplinary action extending to disbarment.[18]
Respondent Meneses misconduct constitute a gross violation of his oath as a lawyer which, inter alia, imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. He blatantly disregarded Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
or received for or from his client. Respondent was merely holding in trust the money he received from his client to
used as consideration for amicable settlement of a case he was handling. Since the amicable settlement did no
materialize, he was necessarily under obligation to immediate return the money, as there is no showing that he has a
lien over it. As a lawyer, he should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional
capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.[19]
The argument of respondent that complainant has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing. Section 1 Rule 139-
B of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court motu propio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complainant of
any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and
the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charge. The evidence submitted by complainant
before the Commission on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended sanctions.
It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to become his client. He
has the right to decline employment[20] subject however, to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.[21] Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him. [22] Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform
his client of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his clients request for
information. Respondents failure to communicate with his client by deliberately disregarding its request for an
audience or conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed of the developments in and the status
of its case.
 On January 7, 1998, the Bar Confidant submitted to the Court a copy of the letter of Atty. Augusto G. Navarro,
dated December 18, 1997, to the effect that although a copy of the aforestated Resolution No. XII-97-133 was
personally delivered to respondents address and received by his wife on October 9, 1997, he had failed to restitute the
amount of P50,000.00 to complainant within the 15-day period provided therein. Neither has he filed with this Court
any pleading or written indication of his having returned said amount to complainant. In line with the resolution in this
case, his disbarment is consequently warranted and exigent.
A note and advice on the penalty imposed in the resolution is in order. The dispositive portion thereof provides
that:
x x x Respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years and
is hereby directed to return the Fifty Thousand Pesos he received from the petitioner within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of this resolution. Failure on his part to comply will result (i)n his DISBARMENT.[23]
In other words, it effectively purports to impose either a 3-year suspension or disbarment, depending on whether or
not respondent duly returns the amount to complainant. Viewed from another angle, it directs that he shall only be
suspended, subject to the condition that he should make restitution as prescribed therein.
Dispositions of this nature should be avoided. In the imposition of penalties in criminal cases, it has long been the
rule that the penalty imposed in a judgment cannot be in the alternative, even if the law provides for alternative
penalties,[24] not can such penalty be subject to a condition.[25] There is no reason why such legal principles in penal
law should not apply in administrative disciplinary actions which, as in this case, also involve punitive sanctions.
Besides, if the purpose was to extenuate the liability of respondent, the only possible and equivalent rule is in
malversation cases holding that the restitution of the peculated funds would be analogous to voluntary surrender if it
was immediately and voluntarily made before the case was instituted.[26] The evidently is not the situation here. Also
the implementation of the penalty provided in the resolution will involve a cumbersome process since, in order to
arrive at the final action to be taken by this Court, it will have to wait for a verified report on whether or not
respondent complied with the condition subsequent.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rosendo Meneses III is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this decision be attached to
respondents personal records in this Court and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, together with all courts
in the county.
SO ORDERED.

Nakpil vs Valdes [A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998]

16OCT

Ponente: PUNO, J.

FACTS:

Jose Nakpil, husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing a summer residence in Moran Street, Baguio
City. For lack of funds, he requested respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. They agreed that respondent
would keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement,
respondent obtained two (2) loans from a bank which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was then
issued in respondents name.

The ownership of the Moran property became an issue in the intestate proceedings when Jose Nakpil died. Respondent
acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of
Joses estate and transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the complainant.

HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one (1) year.

RATIO:

[T]here is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other. Respondents
accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of
two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor,
and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.

[R]espondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a position where his loyalty to his client could be doubted. In the
estate proceedings, the duty of respondents law firm was to contest the claims of these two creditors but which
claims were prepared by respondents accounting firm. Even if the claims were valid and did not prejudice the estate,
the set-up is still undesirable. The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the representation is
probability, not certainty of conflict. It was respondents duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to
avoid the probability of conflict of interest.

Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the
bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession. Members of the bar are expected to always live up to the standards embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility as the relationship between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. In the case at bar, respondent exhibited less than full fidelity to his duty
to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his clients.

A.C. No. 2200. July 19, 1990.

BASILIO C. GUTIERREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO N. ZULUETA, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM.:

This case pertains to disciplinary proceedings initiated by the herein complainant Basilio C. Gutierrez against the
herein respondent Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta.

On October 13, 1980, the complainant filed with this Court a sworn letter-complaint dated October 11, 1980 seeking
the disbarment of the respondent lawyer on the grounds of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the
legal profession.

The complainant alleges that the respondent lawyer was his counsel in two cases, namely, a workmens compensation
case and a civil case filed with the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga Del Sur. The complaint concerns the
latter case.

The complainant filed the said civil case against his former employer, the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The trial
court ruled in his favor. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said appellate court reversed the decision of the trial
court and ruled in favor of the company. It is categorically stated in the said decision that the complainant did not file
a brief. Thus, he maintains that the case was resolved against him primarily because his lawyer, the herein respondent,
did not file the required brief with the appellate court and such omission is attributable to the dishonesty of the
respondent lawyer.

In support of his contention, the complainant alleges that sometime in August 1976, the respondent lawyer, who was
then in Manila, wired him to send the amount of P400.00 to cover the expenses in relation to the preparation and
printing of the appellees brief, and upon receipt of the message, he sent the said amount to the respondent lawyer
through the Philippine National Bank. He also alleges that he sent a telegram to the respondent lawyer for the purpose
of informing the latter that the P400.00 can be obtained at the Sampaloc, Manila branch office of the same bank.
It appears that sometime thereafter, the respondent lawyer assured the complainant that the brief had already been
filed in court and that a copy thereof will be made available to the latter in due time.

It also appears that immediately after the complainant received a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, he
reported the matter to the provincial governor inasmuch as the respondent lawyer is the provincial legal counsel. An
investigation ensued but the same failed to settle the problem.

As stated earlier, the complainant eventually brought the matter to the attention of this Court. On April 20, 1981, the
Court resolved to refer the matter to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

In the investigation that ensued, the respondent lawyer testified that he received the amount of P400.00 from the
complainant for the purpose of preparing the said brief and that he gave the said amount to his secretary to cover the
expenses to be incurred in such preparation. He also testified that he had to leave for Pagadian City at that time and
that he instructed his secretary to attend to the filing of the brief. He likewise stated that sometime thereafter, his
secretary assured him that the brief had been filed already. He also said that he could not furnish the complainant
with a copy of the brief inasmuch as his secretary, for undisclosed reasons, left the office, taking with her his records
and his typewriter. The respondent lawyer admits that he received the additional amount of P100.00 from the
complainant for the purpose of securing a copy of the brief for the latter. 1

In due time, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its report recommending therein that the respondent lawyer be
found guilty of not having exercised the due diligence required of a member of the legal profession in connection with
his duties to his clients and accordingly impose upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a
period of one year. 2

The record of the case undoubtedly discloses that the respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence in protecting
and attending to the interest of his client, the herein complainant. The failure of the respondent lawyer to undertake
the necessary measures to submit the required brief certainly caused material prejudice to the complainant inasmuch
as the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court which was in favor of the latter.

The explanation given by the respondent lawyer to the effect that the failure is attributable to the negligence of his
secretary is devoid of merit. A responsible lawyer is expected to supervise the work in his office with respect to all the
pleadings to be filed in court and he should not delegate this responsibility, lock, stock and barrel, to his office
secretary. If it were otherwise, irresponsible members of the legal profession can avoid appropriate disciplinary action
by simply disavowing liability and attributing the problem to the fault or negligence of the office secretary. Such
situation will not be countenanced by this Court.

In sum, therefore, this Court is of the well-considered opinion that the respondent lawyer failed to live up to the duties
and responsibilities of a member of the legal profession. His suspension from the practice of law is in order.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo N. Zulueta is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year
effective from the date of his receipt of this resolution. He is advised to henceforth exercise greater care and diligence
in the performance of his duties towards his clients. This decision is immediately executory and no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration will be entertained. Let copies of this resolution be attached to
his personal record and circulated among the different courts. SO ORDERED.

Garcia vs. Francisco

FACTS:

Garcia, et. al leased a parcel of land to Lee for a period of 25 years beginning May 1, 1964. Despite repeated verbal
and written demands, Lee refused to vacate after the expiration of the lease. Lee was represented by Atty. Francisco.
On March 29, 1989, Lee, through Francisco, filed a complaint against Garcia and the other lessors for specific
performance and reconveyance with damages (docketed as Q-89-2188) but was dismissed by the trial court. On May 29,
1989, Garcia and the other lessors filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Lee but Lee answered alleging as
special and affirmative defense the pendency of case Q-89-2188. This allegation was rejected by Judge Bautista. On
October 24, 1989, Atty. Francisco filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against
Judge Bautista and Garcia, et. al (such is violative of the Rule on Summary Procedure prohibiting the filing of petitions
for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order). On November 13, 1989, Judge Vera issued an
order enjoining Judge Bautista from proceeding with the trial of the unlawful detainer case. Upon motion of the
complainant, however, the injunction was set aside and Civil Case No. Q-89-3833 was dismissed. Lee did not appeal.
On April 6, 1990, Lee through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
injunction with the Court of Appeals against Judge Vera, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors. Petition was
denied. On June 14, 1990, Judge Singzon decided Civil Case no. 1455 in favor of complainant Garcia and the other
lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead, through Francisco again, he filed a petition against Judge Singzon and the other
lessors for certiorari and annulment of the decision in the unlawful detainer case and damages with prayer for issuance
of preliminary injunction. On July 2, 1990, Garcias group filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Civil Case. On July 13,
1990, Judge Paralejo issued an order enjoining Judge Singzon from enforcing the decision in that case. Garcia attacked
this order in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction docketed as CA Sp. No.
22392. The petition was granted by the Court of Appeals. Garcia then filed a motion for execution in the unlawful
detainer case. Then, Lee, through Francisco, filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order against the Court of Appeals, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors
but was denied. Finally, Lee, still through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction against
Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside and declare the
writs of execution in the unlawful detainer case. Such dismissed but again Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion for
reconsideration. According to Francisco, he was relieved as counsel while this motion was pending.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Francisco transgressed with the Code of Professional Conduct

HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Franciscos cause was without merit. Atty. Francisco abused his right of
recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was disdaining the
obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only
as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice,
he has besmirched the name of an honorable profession and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by
law as an officer of the Court. Atty. Crisanto l. Francisco took his oath as a lawyer on March 2, 1956. Considering his
age and experience in the practice of the laws, he should have known better than to trifle with it and to use it as an
instrument for harassment of the complainant and the misuse of judicial processes.