FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8735. December 2, 2021.][Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3025]
AGNES P. DE LARA, complainant,vs. ATTY. ROLANDO V. ZUBIRI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8735 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3025] (Agnes P. De Lara v. Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri). — This resolves the disbarment complaint 1 filed by Agnes P. De Lara (De Lara) against Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (Atty. Zubiri).
De Lara alleged that sometime in 1997, she obtained a P930,000.00 loan from Quedancor secured by several mortgages, one of which was Artemio Catalo's (Catalo) real property. When De Lara learned that Catalo's mortgaged property may be released if she pays Quedancor P500,000.00, she sought the legal services of Atty. Zubiri. De Lara was in the United States during that time, so she asked Pilar Gaspi to purchase a Manager's Check in the amount of P500,000.00 and give the check to Atty. Zubiri. De Lara claimed that Atty. Zubiri encashed the check. However, when Catalo went to see Atty. Zubiri to secure the P500,000.00, Atty. Zubiri refused to give the money. De Lara alleged that Atty. Zubiri promised on different dates to deliver the money, but eventually, he refused to give them any amount. De Lara was then constrained to write a demand letter to Atty. Zubiri to recover the P500,000.00. Atty. Zubiri ignored the letter. Thus, on September 13, 2010, she filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Zubiri. 2
In his answer, Atty. Zubiri stated that in 2004, De Lara consulted him on the possible foreclosure of properties mortgaged to Quedancor. 3 De Lara gave him P20,000.00 and committed to send more money for professional fees, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Atty. Zubiri admitted to receiving P500,000.00 from De Lara but asserted that the money was for just and reasonable compensation for his services and reimbursement of expenses he incurred relative to the foreclosure case and payment of his professional fees. He did not receive it in trust for Catalo. He averred that he spent P20,000.00 each time he would travel to Quedancor's office in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, which could only be reached by plane or by 18 hours of travel by land from Manila. He went to San Jose at least ten (10) times to advocate for the postponement of the foreclosure. Atty. Zubiri added that it was because of him that Quedancor did not foreclose the mortgage.
On June 28, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended to suspend Atty. Zubiri from the practice of law for six (6) months for violating Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 4 The IBP-CBD noted that there was no written contract for professional services between the parties, but still, there should be proper accounting of the money that Atty. Zubiri received. 5 This is to determine whether Atty. Zubiri has charged only fair and reasonable fees because the facts do not show how much went to transportation and hotel expenses and how much was retained for professional fees. 6
On December 14, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD's factual findings and recommendations, viz.:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, 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 to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for violation of Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. 7 (Emphasis and italics in original.)
Atty. Zubiri moved for reconsideration, but the IBP Board of Governors denied it on May 28, 2016 because no new reason or argument was adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board. 8
RULING
We sustain the findings of the IBP that Atty. Zubiri committed professional negligence under Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the CPR, with a modification that we also find him guilty of violating Rule 16.03, to wit: CAIHTE
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. 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 De Lara gave Atty. Zubiri P500,000.00. Atty. Zubiri did not deny receiving the money but insisted it was for reimbursement of expenses and legal fees. However, Atty. Zubiri did not render an accounting of the funds entrusted to him. He merely reasoned that he was able to conduct a successful negotiation with Quedancor on the foreclosed property. He also ignored De Lara's demand letter. Suffice it to state that although Rule 16.03 affords the lawyer the right to have a lien over the funds and apply so much as necessary for legal fees and disbursements, the CPR also requires that the lawyer must promptly notify his client and render an accounting. 9 In Garcia v. Manuel, 10 the Court held that "[t]he highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and client requires that the lawyer should promptly account for all the funds received from, or held by him for, the client." Therefore, an attorney's lien does not relieve a lawyer of his duty to account for the money received and to inform his client if any amount was applied to satisfy fees and disbursements. 11
Furthermore, the acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. 12 In Palencia v. Linsangan, 13 we held that:
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary. This relationship holds a lawyer to a great degree of fidelity and good faith especially in handling money or property of his clients. Thus, Canon 16 and its rules remind a lawyer to: (1) hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession; (2) deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand subject to his retaining lien; and (3) account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client.
xxx xxx xxx
It is the lawyer's duty to give a prompt and accurate account to his client. Upon the collection or receipt of property or funds for the benefit of the client, his duty is to notify the client promptly and, absent a contrary understanding, pay or remit the same to the client, less only proper fees and disbursements, as soon as reasonably possible. He is under absolute duty to give his client a full, detailed, and accurate account of all money and property which has been received and handled by him, and must justify all transactions and dealings concerning them. And while he is in possession of the client's funds, he should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent.
Unfortunately, Atty. Zubiri failed to perform his duties under Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR which warrants his administrative liability.
In addition, we find Atty. Zubiri guilty of violating Canon 17 14 of the CPR. De Lara hired Atty. Zubiri to assist him in the possible release of Catalo's property from the mortgage. However, instead of delivering the P500,000.00 funds to Catalo for payment to Quedancor, Atty. Zubiri applied the money as payment for his legal fees and disbursements for the trips he made relative to the foreclosure. Yet, De Lara did not authorize Atty. Zubiri to handle the foreclosure but only to receive the money in trust for Catalo so that Catalo's mortgaged property will be released. Atty. Zubiri disregarded his duty of fidelity and loyalty to his client De Lara.
Penalty
In De Mesa v. Olaybal 15 and Manalang v. Angeles, 16 the Court had imposed the penalty of six (6) months against the erring lawyer for violating Canons 16 and 17 of CPR. In Garcia v. Manuel, 17 the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months for violating Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 when he received the amount of P10,000.00 as filing fees for an ejectment case but did not file the case. The lawyer failed to account for the amount received and was unable to return the amount despite repeated demands. In Chua v. Jimenez, 18 the Court suspended the lawyer for six (6) months for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03. The lawyer received money from the complainant but withheld the filing of cases because the complainant had not yet settled his obligation with his law office. He applied the amount received to his and his law office's professional fees instead of using them as filing fees. He also kept his client in the dark and misled him for seven (7) years. In these cases, however, there was no previous infraction committed by the respondent lawyers.
Incidentally, Atty. Zubiri has already been subjected to an administrative sanction in Festin v. Zubiri 19where he was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months for violating Canon 1, 20 Canon 8, 21 and Rule 10.03, 22 Canon 10 of the CPR. Thus, the Court deems that a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year is sufficient and commensurate with his infractions.
Lastly, the Court orders the return of the amount of P500,000.00, which Atty. Zubiri received from De Lara. Although disciplinary proceedings must be limited only around the determination of the erring lawyer's administrative liability and not his civil liability, this rule is applicable only when the claimed liabilities are purely civil in nature, such as when the claim involves amounts received from the client in a transaction separate and distinct, and not intrinsically linked, to his professional engagement. 23 Here, the money given by De Lara and received by Atty. Zubiri was in connection with the professional engagement of Atty. Zubiri as counsel. It would be unfair and inequitable for the Court to be silent about a lawyer's legal obligation to restitute a complainant. No victim of gross ethical misconduct concerning a client's funds or property should be required to still litigate in another proceeding what the administrative proceeding has already established as the lawyer's liability. 24 Thus, it is proper that the P500,000.00 be returned to De Lara, with 6% legal interest per annum from the date of receipt of this Resolution until full payment. 25
FOR THESE REASONS, Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri is SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law for violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, effective upon the receipt of this Resolution. Atty. Zubiri is ORDERED to RETURN to the complainant Agnes P. De Lara the amount of P500,000.00, with legal interest of 6% per annum from receipt of this Resolution until full payment. DETACa
Atty. Zubiri is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to: (1) the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Zubiri's personal records as an attorney; (2) the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and (3) the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 25.
4.Id. at 74-78.
5.Id. at 77.
6.Id. at 77.
7.Id. at 73.
8.Id. at 80.
9. See Rayos v. Hernandez, 544 Phil. 447-468 (2007); Garcia v. Manuel (Resolution), 443 Phil. 479-489 (2003).
10.Garcia v. Manuel (Resolution), 443 Phil. 479-489 (2003).
11.Supra. See also Lemoine v. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702-716 (2003).
12.Francia v. Sagario, A.C. No. 10938, October 8, 2019.
13. 836 Phil. 1 (2018).
14. 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.
15. 824 Phil. 825 (2018).
16. 447 Phil. 1-11 (2003).
17. 443 Phil. 479-489 (2003).
18. 801 Phil. 1-13 (2016).
19. 811 Phil. 1-12 (2017).
20. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
21. CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
22. RULE 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
23.Minas v. Doctor, Jr., A.C. No. 12660 (Resolution), January 28, 2020.
24.Bayonla v. Reyes,676 Phil. 500-517 (2011).
25. See Caballero v. Pilapil,A.C. No. 7075, January 21, 2020; San Gabriel v. Sempio, A.C. No. 12423, March 26, 2019.