FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7708. March 20, 2019.]
NORMA M. DIZON, complainant, vs.ATTY. MANUEL W. QUIJANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 20, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7708 (Norma M. Dizon v. Atty. Manuel W. Quijano). — The present administrative case resolves the complaint-affidavit 1 filed before this Court by Norma M. Dizon (complainant) against her former counsel, Atty. Manuel W. Quijano (respondent).
Complainant is a businesswoman based at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City. Previously, she engaged respondent's services on a retainer basis to provide legal advice on concerns relating to her business and other matters. 2
On September 1, 2006, a car owned by complainant figured in an accident with a car owned by Ronaldo Aguilar (Aguilar). The ensuing legal dispute forced complainant to engage respondent's services, her retained counsel. On April 17, 2007, respondent allegedly received the amount of P100,000.00 from complainant as settlement of the claim of Aguilar for the repair of the latter's vehicle. 3 Complainant claims that she instructed respondent to turn over this amount only after Aguilar agrees to confine the cost of repair to a maximum amount of P100,000.00. However, after several meetings with Aguilar's counsel, the parties failed to agree on the terms of the settlement. 4
On July 31, 2007, complainant demanded for the return of the amount she gave as settlement of Aguilar's claim. 5 When her demand went unheeded, complainant again sent another letter to respondent on October 2, 2007. 6 Further, due to financial difficulties, complainant decided to terminate her retainer agreement with respondent on October 9, 2007. 7 Despite complainant's demands and the termination of their retainer agreement, respondent still failed to return the amount of P100,000.00. This prompted complainant to file a complaint-affidavit for disbarment before this Court on December 5, 2007. 8
In a Resolution 9 dated February 6, 2008, We required respondent to comment on the complaint-affidavit. On March 14, 2008, respondent returned the amount of P100,000.00 to complainant. 10 Meanwhile, after two motions for extension, 11 respondent finally filed his comment 12 dated May 13, 2008, where he questioned complainant's motives in filing the present case. Respondent alleges that complainant's failure to file a criminal case for estafa against him casts doubt on the veracity of her claims. 13 cSEDTC
Further, while admitting that he received the amount of P100,000.00 from complainant, respondent counters that the said amount is not complainant's money but rather that of the insurance company. He alleges that the money is from the proceeds of her third-party property damage claim. Hence, respondent concludes that since it is the insurance company that has a material interest to recover the said amount, complainant is not the real party-in-interest to initiate the present administrative case. 14
Respondent also denies misappropriating the money for personal use. He claims that he held on to the insurance proceeds entrusted to him while trying to convince Aguilar to agree to the terms of the proposed settlement. Finally, respondent alleges that he returned the amount to complainant after the termination of their retainer agreement. 15
On August 6, 2008, we required complainant to file a reply, 16 which she submitted on October 10, 2008. In her reply, 17 complainant, while admitting that she did not file a criminal complaint, alleges that she found the filing of the instant administrative complaint to be her best remedy against respondent. In any case, complainant argues that it is her prerogative to decide whether to file a criminal complaint or not. 18
Further, she denies respondent's allegation that the sum of P100,000.00 is not her own money. Instead, complainant claims that she had to shell out her own money as the check issued by the insurance company was yet to be cleared by her bank. While complainant admits that respondent returned the P100,000.00 on March 14, 2008, she claims that the significant period it took for respondent to heed her demand only shows that respondent has used it for another purpose. It took respondent more than five months (or 157 days) from the time complainant terminated their retainer agreement to return the money entrusted to him. 19
On December 10, 2008, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. 20
After the mandatory conference on April 24, 2009, the parties were directed to submit their verified position papers. 21 After both parties complied, 22 the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
In a Report and Recommendation 23 dated July 15, 2009, Investigating Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag (Commissioner Hababag) recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months for failure to return promptly the amount entrusted to him by his client. Commissioner Hababag found that respondent should have immediately returned the money to complainant after his legal engagement was officially terminated on October 9, 2007. However, it was only on March 14, 2008 or after the instant administrative complaint had already been filed that respondent returned the money to complainant. 24
Finding the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner Hababag to be amply supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution No. XXI-2015-304 25 on April 19, 2015 adopting and approving the same.
The sole issue in this case is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his failure to immediately deliver the funds entrusted to him by complainant.
We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Preliminarily, respondent argues that complainant is not the real party-in-interest to institute the present administrative case as the money he received is that of the insurance company. This claim deserves scant consideration. The records clearly show that the sum was released by the insurance company to complainant as proceeds of her insurance policy. 26 In any case, even if respondent's allegation were true, we have repeatedly held that rules on real party-in-interest applicable to civil cases are not controlling in disbarment proceedings. 27 Indeed, any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. 28
With regard to respondent's administrative liability, the Investigating Commissioner correctly found that respondent failed to timely deliver the sum of P100,000.00 entrusted to him by complainant despite the latter's repeated demands.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that respondent admitted having received the said amount from complainant. Consequently, it was his duty to return the same after he received the first demand letter from complainant on July 31, 2007. Therefore, respondent's failure to immediately return the sum entrusted to him by his client constitutes a violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively read as follows: SDAaTC
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x
As to the penalty, cases show that violations of Canon 16 usually range from suspension from the practice of law for six months to the ultimate penalty of disbarment, depending on the circumstances of each case. 29 Here, it is not disputed that respondent returned complainant's P100,000.00, albeit months after the termination of their retainership agreement and after repeated demands. We thus find the recommendation of Commissioner Hababag, as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors, to suspend respondent from the practice of law for three months proper and commensurate under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Manuel W. Quijano is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE MONTHS, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's personal records with the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts of the land.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2.Id. at 68.
3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 82.
5.Id. at 8.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Supra note 1.
9.Rollo, p. 13.
10.Id. at 43.
11.Id. at 15-17, 19-21.
12.Id. at 31-42.
13.Id. at 32.
14.Id. at 35.
15.Id. at 38-39.
16.Id. at 45.
17.Id. at 46-47.
18.Id. at 46.
19.Id. at 46-47.
20.Id. at 48.
21.Id. at 63.
22.Id. at 68-74, 79-103.
23.Id. at 111-117.
24.Id. at 117.
25.Id. at 109-110.
26.Id. at 10.
27.Sebastian v. Bajar, A.C. No. 3731, September 7, 2007, 532 SCRA 435, 450.
28.Id. at 451.
29.Luna v. Galarrita, A.C. No. 10662, July 7, 2015, 762 SCRA 1, 17.