Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 7965               November 13, 2013

AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

For the Court’s resolution is an administrative complaint  filed by Azucena Segovia-Ribaya (complainant) against
1

Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin (respondent), the antecedents of which are detailed as follows:

The Facts

On November 18, 2005, the parties entered into a retainership agreement  (retainer) whereby respondent undertook
2

to, inter alia process the registration and eventually deliver, within a period of six (6 ) months,  the certificate of title
3

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 ₱15,000.00 and
₱39,000.00  to cover for the litigation and land registration expenses, respectively.
4

Notwithstanding the expenditure of the ₱39,000.00 given for registration expenses (subject amount) and the lapse
of more than three (3) years from the retainer’s 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 respondent’s 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
5 6

administrative complaint.

In his Comment,  respondent admitted that he indeed received the subject amount from complainant but averred
7

that after receiving the same, the latter’s brother, Erlindo, asked to be reimbursed the amount of ₱7,500.00 which
the latter purportedly paid to the land surveyor.  Respondent likewise alleged that he later found out that he could
8

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
9

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. 10

In the Court’s Resolutions dated December 17, 2008  and March 2, 2009,  the case was referred to the Integrated
11 12

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
13

paper  on October 8, 2009, while respondent failed to do so.

14

The IBP’s Report and Recommendation

On November 6, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation,  finding 15

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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s failure to return the subject amount, despite
16
being given "adequate time to return"  the same, "not to mention the repeated x x x demands made upon
17

him,"  constitutes "gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even misappropriation of money"  in violation of the
18 19

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. 20

In a Resolution  dated December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating
21

Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation with modification, ordering the return of the amount of
₱31,500.00,  with legal interest and within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, to complainant.
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 Court’s Ruling

The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP anent respondent’s 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 ₱31,500.00.

Anent respondent’s administrative liability, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent’s failure to properly
account for and duly return his client’s 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
1âwphi1

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.

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 client’s act of confronting him at his office
wherein she shouted and called him names. With the fact of receipt being established, it was then respondent’s
obligation to return the money entrusted to him by complainant. To this end, suffice it to state that complainant’s
purported act of "maligning" respondent does not justify the latter’s failure to properly account for and return his
client’s money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyer’s 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 lawyer’s client, especially so when the latter remains unsatisfied by the lawyer’s 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.
23

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.

The Court, however, deems it proper to increase the IBP’s 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
client’s 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 respondent’s 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 ₱31,500.00 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
25

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
respondent’s administrative liability.

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

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 3745 October 2, 1995

CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO, respondent.

RESOLUTION

FRANCISCO, J.:

Complainant Cynthia B. Rosacia, president of Tacma, Phils., Inc., a duly registered corporation, filed a complaint for
disbarment dated October 25, 1991, against herein respondent Atty. Benjamin B. Bulalacao. Acting on the
complaint, the Court in a resolution dated February 24, 1992, resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez, the IBP
investigating commissioner, found that respondent breached his oath of office and accordingly recommended
respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months.  In a resolution dated July 30, 1994, the IBP
1

Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the commissioner's report and recommendation. 2

As found by the IBP, the undisputed facts are as follows:

On June 1, 1990, by virtue of a written Agreement (Exh. "3-a"), respondent Atty. Benjamin B.
Bulalacao was hired as retained counsel of a corporation by the name of Tacma Phils., Inc.

On October 31, 1990, the lawyer-client relationship between the respondent and Tacma Phils., Inc.
was severed as shown by another agreement of even date (Exh. "3-b").

On July, 1991, or after almost nine (9) months from the date respondent's retainer agreement with
Tacma, Phils., Inc. was terminated, several employees of the corporation consulted the respondent
for the purpose of filing an action for illegal dismissal. Thereafter, he agreed to handle the case for
the said employees as against Tacma, Phils., Inc. by filing a complaint before the National Labor
Relations Commission, and appearing in their behalf. 3

The sole issue to be addressed is whether or not respondent breached his oath of office for representing the
employees of his former client, Tacma, Phils., Inc., after the termination of their attorney-client relationship. We
agree with the findings of the IBP that respondent breached his oath of office. Respondent does not now dispute
this. In fact, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he "did commit an act bordering on grave
misconduct, if not outright violation of his attorney's oath".  However, respondent is pleading for the Court's
4

compassion and leniency to reduce the IBP recommended three months suspension to either fine or admonition
with the following proffered grounds: that he is relatively new in the profession having been admitted to the
Philippine Bar on April 10, 1990 at the age of 46 when the complained conduct was committed on August 1991; that
he is of humble beginnings and his suspension will deprive his family of its only source of livelihood he being the
sole bread winner in the family; that he has fully realized his mistake and the gravity of his offense for which he is
fully repentant; that he has severed his attorney-client relationship with the employees of Tacma, Phils., Inc. by
inhibiting himself and withdrawing his appearance as counsel in the labor case against Tacma, Phils., Inc.; and that
he pledges not to commit the same mistake and to henceforth strictly adhere to the professional standards set forth
by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court reiterates that an attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented him
but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated as it is not good practice to permit him afterwards to
defend in another case other person against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from, and
independent of the former case.  It behooves respondent not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also
5

to avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.  The relation of attorney
6

and client is one of confidence and trust in the highest degree.  A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
7

he ought to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.  An attorney not only becomes familiar with all the
8

facts connected with his client's cause, but also learns from his client the weak and strong points of the case. No
opportunity must be given attorneys to take advantage of the secrets of clients obtained while the confidential
relation of attorney and client exists. Otherwise, the legal profession will suffer by the loss of the confidence of the
people.9

Respondent's plea for leniency cannot be granted. We note that respondent is new in the profession as he was just
admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 10, 1990, when the breach of his oath of office occurred more than a year
after. Having just hurdled the bar examinations which included an examination in legal ethics, surely the precepts of
the Code of Professional Responsibility to keep inviolate the client's trust and confidence even after the attorney-
client relation is terminated   must have been still fresh in his mind. A lawyer starting to establish his stature in the
10

legal profession must start right and dutifully abide by the norms of conduct of the profession. This will ineluctably
redound to his benefit and to the upliftment of the legal profession as well.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three months. Let this resolution
be attached to respondent's record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished to all courts and
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.

Footnotes
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 4945               October 8, 2013

MA. JENNIFER TRIA-SAMONTE, Complainant,

vs.
EPIFANIA "FANNY" OBIAS, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

For the Court's resolution is an administrative Complaint-affidavit 1 filed by Ma. Jennifer Tria-Samonte (complainant)
against Epifania "Fanny"Obias (respondent) charging her for grave misconduct and/or gross malpractice.

The facts

In 1997, spouses Prudencio and Loreta Jeremias (Sps. Jeremias),through respondent, offered for sale a parcel of
agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 597 (subject property) to the late Nestor Tria (Nestor)
and Pura S. Tria (Sps. Tria), for a consideration of ₱2,800,000.00 and payable in installments. 2 Respondent, who
was to receive the payment from Sps. Tria and transmit the same to Sps. Jeremias, undertook to deliver the deed of
sale and owner’s copy of the title to her clients (Sps. Tria) upon full payment of the purchase price. 3 She further
undertook to cause the conversion of the subject property from agricultural to residential, and the transfer of the title
to the names of Sps. Tria as part of the package agreement. 4 Respondent received all the installment payments
made by Sps. Tria and issued receipts therefor. 5 After full payment of the purchase price on July 11, 1997, 6 and after
giving an additional ₱115,000.00for capital gains tax and other expenses, 7 Sps. Tria requested from respondent the
delivery of the deed of sale and the owner’s copy of the title to them but respondent failed to comply explaining that
the Department of Agrarian Reform clearance for conversion of the subject property from agricultural to residential
was taking time.8 Despite several subsequent demands, respondent still failed to fulfill her undertakings under the
package agreement.9

On May 22, 1998, Nestor was fatally shot and died. 10 Thereafter, complainant, daughter of Sps. Tria, again
demanded from respondent and Sps. Jeremias the delivery of the deed of sale and the certificate of title of the
subject property to them, but to no avail. For their part, Sps. Jeremias informed complainant that they had received
the consideration of ₱2,200,000.00 and they had executed and turned-over the sale documents to respondent. 11

Complainant later discovered that a deed of sale over the subject property was executed by Sps. Jeremias and
notarized by respondent favor of someone else, a certain Dennis Tan, on May 26, 1998 for a consideration of
₱200,000.00.12

In defense, respondent, in her Comment,13 claimed that Nestor instructed her in November 1997 not to proceed with
the processing of the deed of sale and, instead, to just look for another buyer. 14 She further averred that Nestor also
demanded from her the return of the purchase price, and that she complied with the said demand and returned the
₱2,800,000.00 in cash to Nestor sometime during the latter part of January 1998. 15 However, she did not ask for a
written receipt therefor. In fact, Nestor told her not to return the ₱115,000.00 intended for capital gains taxes and
other expenses, and to just apply the said sum as attorney’s fees for the other legal services that she rendered for
him.16

In the Court’s Resolution17 dated August 30, 1999, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. After numerous postponements, mostly at the instance of
respondent,18 only the complainant and her witnesses testified before the IBP. Eventually, respondent’s right to
present evidence was considered waived.19
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation

On September 25, 2007, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes (Investigating Commissioner),
issued his Report and Recommendation, 20 finding respondent to have violated her oath as a lawyer due to her
participation in the second sale of the subject property despite the lack of any lawful termination of the prior sale of
the same property to Sps.Tria. The Investigating Commissioner observed that respondent received, and admitted to
have received, from Sps. Tria the ₱2,800,000.00 purchase price and the amount of ₱115,000.00 for expenses. He
further found the second sale of the same property to Dennis Tan as a clear indication that respondent: (a)
employed serious deceit or fraud against Sps. Tria and their family; (b) violated their proprietary rights; and (c)
violated the trust and confidence reposed in her. 21 On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner did not give
credence to respondent’s defense that she returned the ₱2,800,000.00 purchase price given by Sps. Tria and that
the latter caused the cancellation of the sale of the subject property in their favor, absent any receipt or
documentation to prove the same.22 As counsel for Sps. Tria, respondent failed in her obligation to observe honesty
and diligence in their transaction and, as such, she was found guilty of grave misconduct and gross malpractice in
violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code). 23 Accordingly, the Investigating
Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. 24

Finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering respondent’s violation of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-185 25 dated
October 19,2007 but reduced the suspension of respondent from the practice of law from five years to one year.

Both complainant and respondent filed their respective motions for reconsideration 26 which were, however, denied in
the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XX-2012-109 dated March 10, 2012. 27

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should beheld administratively liable for violating
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the IBP. Indeed, respondent, in her Comment, already
admitted that she rendered legal services to Sps. Tria, 28 which necessarily gave rise to a lawyer-client relationship
between them. The complete turnaround made by respondent in her motion for reconsideration from the IBP Board
of Governors’ Resolution No. XX-2012-109, where she contended that there was no lawyer-client relationship
between her and Sps. Tria,29 cannot thus be given any credence.

Since respondent publicly held herself out as lawyer, the mere fact that she also donned the hat of a real estate
broker did not divest her of the responsibilities attendant to the legal profession. In this regard, the legal advice
and/or legal documentation that she offered and/or rendered regarding the real estate transaction subject of this
case should not be deemed removed from the category of legal services. 30 Case law instructs that if a person, in
respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional
employment is established.31 Thus, in view of the fact that Sps. Tria knew respondent to be, and transacted with her
as, a lawyer, her belated and unilateral classification of her own acts as being limited to those of a real estate broker
cannot be upheld. In any case, the lawyer-client relationship between Sps. Tria and respondent was confirmed by
the latter’s admission that she rendered legal services to the former. With this relationship having been established,
the Court proceeds to apply the ethical principles pertinent to this case.

It is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients’ cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in them.32 They are duty-bound to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all their dealings
and transactions with their clients.33 Irrefragably, the legal profession demands of attorneys an absolute abdication of
every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interests of their clients. 34 As
enshrined in Canons 17 and 18 of the Code:
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.

Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. 1âwphi1

In the present case, respondent clearly transgressed the above-mentioned rules as her actions were evidently
prejudicial to her clients’ interests. Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject
property to her clients, she willfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person.
Accordingly, far removed from protecting the interest of her clients, Sps. Tria, who had, in fact, already fully paid the
purchase price of the subject property, respondent participated and was even instrumental in bringing about the
defeat of their rights over the said property. Hence, respondent grossly violated the trust and confidence reposed in
her by her clients, in contravention of Canons 17and 18 of the Code. To add, by turning against her own clients,
respondent also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Lest it be forgotten, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. 35 These unyielding standards
respondent evidently failed to adhere to.

Anent the proper penalty to be imposed, records bear out that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
recommended by the Investigating Commissioner was decreased from a period of five years to just one year by the
IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-185. However, the Court observes that the said resolution is
bereft of any explanation showing the bases for such modification in contravention of Section 12(a), Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court which mandates that "the decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall
clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based." Verily, the Court frowns on the
unexplained change made by the IBP Board of Governors in the recommended penalty. Be that as it may, the Court
proceeds to correct the same.

Jurisprudence reveals that in similar cases where lawyers abused the trust and confidence reposed in them by their
clients as well as committed unlawful, dishonest, and immoral or deceitful conduct, as in this case, the Court found
them guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred them. In Chuav. Mesina, Jr.,36 the Court disbarred the lawyer who,
upon his misrepresentations, breached his promise to his clients to transfer to them the property subject of that
case, but instead, offered the same for sale to the public. Also, in Tabang v. Gacott, 37 the penalty of disbarment was
meted out against the lawyer who, among others, actively sought to sell the properties subject of that case contrary
to the interests of his own clients. As the infractions in the foregoing cases are akin to those committed by
respondent in the case at bar, the Court deems that the same penalty of disbarment be imposed against her.
Clearly, as herein discussed, respondent committed deliberate violations of the Code as she dishonestly dealt with
her own clients and advanced the interests of another against them resulting to their loss. For such violations,
respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment consistent with existing jurisprudence.

As a final point, it bears to note that the foregoing resolution does not-as it should not -include an order for the return
of the ₱2,800,000.00 purchase price and the amount of ₱115,000.00 for expenses allegedly received by
respondent, albeit the Investigating Commissioner's findings on the same. In Roa v. Moreno, 38 it has been held that
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are only confined to the issue of whether or not the respondent-lawyer is
still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar and that the only concern is his administrative
liability.39 Thus, the Court's 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 engagement40 – as the same should be threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature.

WHEREFORE, respondent Epifania "Fanny" Obias is found guilty of gross misconduct and is accordingly
DISBARRED.

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.