Cayme v. Arnado

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 12088. June 5, 2018.]

MARIA LUZ P. CAYME, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE VICENTE M. ARNADO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJUNE 5, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12088 (Maria Luz P. Cayme vs. Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado). — The instant administrative case arose from a verified letter-complaint dated January 16, 2007 filed by complainant Maria Luz P. Cayme (Cayme) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking for the disbarment of respondent Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado (Arnado) for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the said Code.

The Facts

Sometime in 2004, complainant, President of Southern Ulogs Philippines, Inc. (SUPI), engaged the services of Atty. Arnado as her counsel and counsel for SUPI. Complainant sought legal advice from Atty. Arnado because of an incident wherein some members of a rival union blocked the complainant's vehicle which contained scrap iron she purchased from another union of Atlas Mining Corporation. Upon the advice of Atty. Arnado, complainant decided to file the following cases:

1. Criminal and administrative cases with the Office of the Ombudsman against P/Supt. Leodegracia E. Acebedo, Ignacio Calinawan and Rhett Casino; ASEcHI

2. Collection case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu entitled "Southern Ulogs Philippines, Inc. v. Rey Estimo and Arnold Coloscos,";

3. Collection case with the RTC entitled "Southern Ulogs Philippines, Inc. v. Manny Rivera"; and

4. Mandamus case entitled "Ma. Luz Cayme v. Hon. Municipal Assessor, etc."

Thereafter, complainant issued several checks in favor of Atty. Arnado which were received by him as advance payment for his services, including the filing fees for the four (4) cases. The checks amounted to PhP75,825.00.

Complainant alleged that prior to the four (4) cases, she already engaged the legal services of Atty. Arnado to register an adverse claim on her uncle's property. She paid Atty. Arnado for the registration of the said claim but she later on discovered that her adverse claim had not been registered. For this reason, she became anxious regarding the four (4) cases handled for her by Atty. Arnado. Thus, she went directly to the RTC and the Ombudsman to inquire whether the cases have been filed. To her surprise, no such cases were filed by Atty. Arnado.

In his Answer, Atty. Arnado contended that complainant has legal counsel other than him and that complainant did not give her consent to file the four (4) cases. He likewise claimed that the payments he received from the complainant were payments for his legal services other than for the filing of the four (4) cases.

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

In its Report and Recommendation, the CBD found Atty. Arnado guilty of gross misconduct and of violating the Code, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon I (unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Canon 15 (candor, fairness and loyalty), and Canon 16 (accountability). Thus, the CBD recommended that Atty. Arnado be meted the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law. cSaATC

On November 30, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) passed a Resolution 1 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the CBD with the modification ordering Atty. Arnado to restitute complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five Pesos (PhP75,825.00), to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in 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 the act of Respondent shows dishonesty, immorality and deceit, Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law INDEFINITELY and Ordered to Restitute Complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five (P75,825.00) Pesos.

Atty. Arnado filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 6, 2014. On April 20, 2017, the Board passed Resolution No. XXII-2017-1301 denying Atty. Arnado's motion, to wit:

RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors.2

On February 7, 2018, the CBD transmitted to this Court the Notice of Resolution along with the records of this case.

On March 8, 2018, Atty. Arnado filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.

The Ruling of the Court

We concur with the IBP Board of Governors' finding of administrative liability against Atty. Arnado. cHDAIS

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. 3 Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts, and society. 4

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. 5 As such, he can be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, which renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court. 6

Moreover, Canon 15 of the same Code requires a lawyer to "observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealing and transactions with his clients."

In the instant case, it is clear that Atty. Arnado violated his sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code. The records reveal that he did not file the four (4) bases he promised to fulfill for the complainant. This was proven certifications obtained by the complainant from the courts showing that no such cases were filed. Worse, Atty. Arnado defrauded complainant when he collected fees for the filing of the four (4) cases which were not filed and even claimed that the payments he received from the complainant were payments for his legal services other than for the filing of the said cases.

Furthermore, Canon 16, Rule 16.01 provides:

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

In Belleza v. Atty. Macasa, 7 the Court ruled that when a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses, 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. 8 ISHCcT

The Court reiterated in Punla v. Atty. Villa-Ona9 that a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the monies he holds for the client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the said monies for his own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.

In the instant case, Atty. Arnado's failure to render an accounting and to return the money given for the filing of the four (4) cases constitutes a blatant disregard of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the Code.

Atty. Arnado also violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code which enjoins a lawyer not to "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. 10 He is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause. 11 However, Atty. Arnado failed to live up to this standard, as he was negligent in fulfilling his obligation as the counsel of the complainant.

In Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, 12 the Court explained that the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. 13 Falling short of this standard, the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in consideration of the surrounding facts. 14

Notwithstanding our concurrence with the finding of administrative liability, We cannot accept the recommendation of the Board with respect to the penalty imposed. Considering Atty. Arnado's lack of prior administrative record, suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year and not indefinitely, serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession. CAacTH

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Jose Vicente M. Arnado GUILTY of gross misconduct and of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 15, Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent's suspension is effective as of the date of this Resolution. He is ordered to restitute the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Five Pesos (PhP75,825.00) to complainant Maria Luz P. Cayme within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution. Non-payment of said amount shall constitute direct contempt of Court.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant for their information and guidance. Peralta, J., on official leave. Tijam, J., on official business." (adv25) IAETDc

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. As stated in the IBP Notice of Resolution.

2.Id.

3.Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012.

4.Id., citing Valeriana Dalisay v. Atty. Melanio Mauricio Jr., A.C. No. 5655, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 508, 514.

5.Suarez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11064, September 27, 2016 citing Foronda v. Alvarez, Jr., A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014, 727 SCRA 155, 164, citing Manzano v. Soriano, 602 Phil. 419, 426-427 (2009).

6.Id., citing De Chavez-Blanco v. Lumasag, Jr., 603 Phil. 59, 65 (2009).

7. A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 549.

8.Id., citing In re Nueno, 48 Phil. 178 (1948).

9. A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017.

10.Penilla v. Atty. Alcid, Jr., A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013.

11.Id., citing Agpalo, Ruben E., LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, Seventh Edition (2002), p. 209, citing Santiago v. Fojas, Adm. Case No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 69, 75-76 & Torres v. Orden, A.C. No. 4646, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 1, 5.

12.Supra note 3.

13.Id., citing Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran v. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, A.C. No. 5325, October 19, 2011.

14.Id., citing Ruthie Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 10, 25.