Legal Ethics Digest

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.

B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998

FACTS:

 Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His His oath-taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Examinations "subject to the condition that should (he) pass the same, (he) shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the Court . . ." due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. The conviction stemmed from petitioner's participation in the initiation rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW, sometime in September 1991, where Raul I. Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a result of the personal violence inflicted upon him. Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On May 10, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case considered closed and terminated.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not petitioner petitioner Cuevas has the moral moral fitness require d to take the lawyer’s oath?

HELD:

Petitioner is allowed to take the LAWYER’S OATH and sign the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. The Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Camaligan, father of hazing victim Raul Camaligan, and condoles with the untimely death of a son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his father. In his comment submitted to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits petitioner’s plea to be admitted to the membershop to the Philippine Bar, to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court. The deliberate participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neophyte which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However, petitioner was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of the conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his d eficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court then decides to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed AL  ARGOSINO, petitioner’s petitioner’s coco -accused to take the lawyer’s oath. Bautista vs Gonzales A.M No. 1625 [Per Curiam]  FACTS:

In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondent’s motion and required complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed the following acts:

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and  Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees,  for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.  x x x 4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as a ttorney’s  fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of  Deeds of Iligan City;  x x x Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads: We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.  ISSUE:

 Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.  HELD:

 YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.  RATIO:

The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts v iolates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.

Trenas vs People Gr No. 195002

Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to  buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266. It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended the appellant Hector Treñas (Hector) to private complainant Elizabeth, who was an employee and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title in the latter’s name. Hector informed Elizabeth that for the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita, the following expenses would be incurred: Facts :

P20,000.00P90,000.00P24,000.00P10,000.00-

Attorney’s fees, Capital Gains Tax, Documentary Stamp, Miscellaneous Expenses.

Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt dated December 22, 1999 and prepared [a] Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 for P96,000.00 and 00084369 for P24,000.00. However, when she consulted with the BIR, she was informed that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to her that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions. Elizabeth demanded the return of the money. To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of Commerce check No. 0042856 dated November 10, 2000 in the amount of P120,000.00, deducting from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees. When the check was deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. Notwithstanding repeated formal and verbal demands, appellant failed to pay. Thus, the instant case of Estafa was filed against him

ISSUE : 1.

Whether or not the petitioner is criminally liable of estafa?

Ruling : When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize)

constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

Petition Granted. Criminal case of estafa is Dismissed. The case is referred to the IBP Board of governors for investigation.