EN BANC
[A.C. No. 12660. January 28, 2020.]
JOANN G. MINAS, complainant,vs. ATTY. DOMINGO A. DOCTOR, JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAMp:
For the Court's consideration is the disbarment complaint 1 filed by Joann G. Minas (complainant) against Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. (Atty. Doctor) for violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2
Antecedents
Complainant alleged that on May 21, 2011, one of her fishing vessels, FV/JVPHIL 5, with Filipino and Taiwanese crew members, including Hsu Hung-Tse and Chen Fu Nan, was apprehended by the members of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). Criminal cases were filed against the crew members before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela, and administrative cases were filed before the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) and BFAR. Aside from said cases, two other cases involving the vessel were filed against complainant before the Prosecutor's Office of the Province of Zambales and the City of Olongapo. Complainant engaged the services of Atty. Doctor to handle these cases, for which the latter asked for an acceptance fee of P100,000.00, which complainant paid. Two days later, Atty. Doctor informed complainant that his law partners find the acceptance fee dismal and asked that the same be increased to P200,000.00. Complainant agreed and paid in cash. 3
Sometime in the last week of May 2011, Atty. Doctor informed complainant that the two Taiwanese crew members cannot leave the country because of the pending cases before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), and corresponding administrative penalty and miscellaneous fees in the amount of P400,000.00 have to be settled. Thus, on June 8, 2011, complainant, together with Evangeline Conge (Evangeline) and Kevin Arias (Kevin), met Atty. Doctor at the canteen of the BID Office in Intramuros, Manila and she personally handed the amount of P400,000.00 placed in a brown envelope. After receiving the amount, Atty. Doctor told complainant and her companions to leave him behind as he will take care to settle the penalty and fees so that the two Taiwanese national would be cleared by the BID. Atty. Doctor also told complainant that he will just forward the corresponding official receipts. 4
A few days later, Atty. Doctor informed complainant that she has to post a "replevin bond" (as Atty. Doctor has termed it) in the amount of P400,000.00 in order for BFAR to immediately release the vessel. Also, she has to pay US$50,000.00 as administrative fine to convince the BFAR to put an end to the administrative case so that her license will not be cancelled. Thus, complainant, accompanied by Evangeline and Kevin, met Atty. Doctor on June 21, 2011 at KFC, Timog St., Quezon City and gave him the amount of P400,000.00 and US$50,000.00. After receiving the money, Atty. Doctor assured complainant that the fishing vessel will be released in two days and that the BFAR case will be terminated in three days. Complainant did not receive any receipt or bond and the BFAR case was not terminated. Complainant found out that no replevin bond was posted by Atty. Doctor and worse, the prosecution had already presented its evidence ex-parte, since complainant was declared in default for failure of Atty. Doctor to file the required answer on her behalf. 5
Complainant immediately called Atty. Doctor to return the P800,000.00, representing the P400,000.00 given on June 8, 2011 and P400,000.00 given on June 21, 2011, and the US$50,000.00 given on June 21, 2011. Out of the amount, Atty. Doctor only returned to complainant US$40,000.00 on June 27, 2011. A week after, Atty. Doctor returned the amount of US$2,000.00, and he was able to account for the US$1,500.00. Complainant repeatedly called and sent text messages to Atty. Doctor relative to the status of the cases. However, Atty. Doctor did not answer complainant's call nor her text messages. Complainant even went to his residence and office just to get an update of the cases being handled by him. 6
In view of Atty. Doctor's refusal to return and/or account for the money given by complainant, the latter was constrained to send formal demand letters and eventually terminated Atty. Doctor's services. After receiving the letters, Atty. Doctor appeared in one of the hearings before the BFAR and returned to complainant the amount of US$1,900.00, thus, leaving in his trust and possession the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00, which he refuses and continues to refuse to account and/or return. Hence, complainant filed this administrative complainant for disbarment against Atty. Doctor for violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant, likewise, asks that Atty. Doctor be made to return to her the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00. 7
In his Verified Answer, 8 Atty. Doctor stated that the fishing boat, which was apprehended and impounded by the PCG and the BFAR, is actually owned by Hsu Hung Tse @ Cheng Hung Ta, a Taiwanese national, and herein complainant was a mere dummy who submitted perjured and spurious documents for foreigners to evade extant maritime regulations and fishing prohibitions in the Philippines; 9 and that complainant was criminally charged before the Prosecutor of Olongapo City and the Province of Zambales for falsification of public documents and for qualified theft is not correct and the same is misleading. Complainant was charged in connection with the falsification of the deeds of sale covering other fishing boats (i.e., FV/JVPHIL 7, FV/JVPHIL 6 and FV/JVPHIL 11). He was also hired as counsel of complainant in the case pending before the MARINA. The three fishing boats (i.e., FV/JVPHIL 7, FV/JVPHIL 6 and FV/JVPHIL 11) were apprehended and impounded by the PCG in Bolinao, Pangasinan and he worked and exerted extra efforts for their successful release from PCG custody. 10 Also, Atty. Doctor rendered legal services in the cases pending before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for violation of labor laws and alleged illegal recruitment. He was requested by complainant to be her counsel in the administrative case before the BFAR. 11
Although, in the first four cases, which Atty. Doctor handled for complainant, the subject matters involved were extremely important, which required so much labor, time, and trouble, not only in litigation but close coordination and appearance before concerned agencies of the government, he only charged complainant a reasonable acceptance fee of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 for each case and an appearance fee of P3,000.00 to P7,000.00, depending on the distance of his residence to the place of court appearance/litigation. Atty. Doctor was not able to collect his acceptance fee and attorney's fee in the other cases for which he was hired by complainant, i.e., cases before the DOLE in San Fernando City, Pampanga and Olongapo City, Zambales, the Ombudsman, BFAR and MARINA. 12
Atty. Doctor averred that he acted as counsel for complainant from April 2011 to July 23, 2011, when he suffered a stroke which affected his mobility and speech. Even then, he forced himself to attend the scheduled hearing of complainant on a wheelchair and with the aid of a walking cane. Complainant went to his residence and was able to see for herself his actual medical condition. He was able to attend the BFAR hearing scheduled on August 5, 2011. Atty. Doctor believes that herein complainant is not a proper party with respect to matters and issues which are personal and exclusive between him and his Taiwanese clients in the cases pending before the RTC and the administrative case before the BFAR. He further argued that the recitals of complainant, particularly paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint (i.e., pertaining to the delivery of the cited amount from complainant to Atty. Doctor), constitute privileged communication covered under the attorney-client relationship. Without the consent or waiver of his Taiwanese clients, he cannot be at liberty to discuss and answer the allegations of complainant. 13
IBP Report and Recommendation
The Report and Recommendation 14 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) dated April 25, 2016 recommended the imposition of disciplinary action against Atty. Doctor for committing acts contrary to and violative of Canon 16 and Canon 18, respectively, of the Code of Professional Responsibility and imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months with a stern warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. 15
The IBP-CBD found Atty. Doctor's defense of denial and his assertion of privileged communication between a lawyer and his client, particularly as to his answer to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint (i.e., pertaining to the delivery of the cited amount from complainant to Atty. Doctor), are without merit. Atty. Doctor did not adduce any evidence to prove or counter the allegations relative to the receipt of money from complainant. 16 On the other hand, complainant was able to show that a lawyer-client relationship existed between her and Atty. Doctor, and that the latter received money in relation to the cases that he handled for complainant. Atty. Doctor's apparent failure to account for the said amounts constitute a violation of Canon 16, in relation to Canon 18, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 17
IBP Board of Governors
In a Resolution 18 dated February 22, 2018, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification, by increasing the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from six months to two years. 19
Atty. Doctor moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied per Resolution 20 dated December 6, 2018.
Issue
The sole issue for resolution is whether Atty. Doctor should be held administratively liable for his failure to account the money received from complainant and serve his client with competence and diligence, in violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court's Ruling
The Court concurs with the finding of the IBP-CBD, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, that Atty. Doctor violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting his suspension from the practice of law for two years.
The Code of Professional Responsibility states:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
xxx xxx xxx
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 client's request for information.
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return, upon demand, the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. This act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics. 21
As stressed by this Court in the case of Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano, 22 to wit:
Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. 23
Complainant was able to establish that Atty. Doctor received from him the amounts of P400,000.00 on June 8, 2011, another P400,000.00 on June 21, 2011, and US$50,000.00 on June 21, 2011. She submitted the Joint Affidavit 24 of Evangeline and Kevin, who accompanied her during those dates and witnessed the act of receipt of said amounts by Atty. Doctor from complainant. However, Atty. Doctor failed to issue official receipts despite assurances to do so. Moreover, Atty. Doctor failed to use the money for the intended purpose, i.e.: (1) as settlement for the Taiwanese crew members to be cleared by the BID; (2) for the immediate release of the vessel from the custody of the BFAR; and (3) for the termination of the BFAR administrative case. Atty. Doctor should have properly accounted for said amounts and immediately returned the money to complainant when he failed to use the same. If he had done so, there would have been no need for complainant to send demand letters to him. 25
Another evidence of receipt of money is the fact of partial return on the part of Atty. Doctor. The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Doctor partially returned the amount of US$45,400.00 and has a remaining balance to be accounted for in favor of complainant in the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00. 26
The invocation of privileged communication on the part of Atty. Doctor as to the fact of the delivery of the amounts from complainant deserves no consideration. Atty. Doctor claimed that "he cannot in any manner be at liberty to discuss and answer the allegation of complainant in the absence of waiver or authority from his Taiwanese clients since the recitals of complainant, more particularly in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the complaint on ground of the privilege status of communication covered under the attorney-client relationship." 27
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend for the communication to be confidential. A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means, which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given. Thus, a compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of his client and delivered to the opposing party, an offer and counter-offer for settlement, as in this case, or a document given by a client to his counsel not in his professional capacity, are not privileged communications, the element of confidentiality not being present. 28
We affirm the observation made by the IBP-CBD that Atty. Doctor did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence disclosed by the Taiwanese nationals. All his contentions were couched in general terms and lacked specificity. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege. 29 Atty. Doctor failed to discharge this burden.
Atty. Doctor's failure to return the money to complainant despite failure to use the same for the intended purpose is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on him. His unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainant warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
Jurisprudence provides instances where the lawyer commits similar acts against their respective clients and the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. 30 In the case of Jinon v. Atty. Jiz, 31 the Court suspended the erring lawyer for such period for his failure to return the amount of P67,000.00 to his client for his legal services which he never performed. Also, in Agot v. Atty. Rivera, 32 the lawyer was also suspended for two years when he neglected his obligation to secure his client's visa and failed to return his client's money worth P350,000.00 despite demand. In the case of Luna v. Atty. Galarrita, 33 the lawyer failed to promptly inform his client of his receipt of the proceeds of a settlement for the client, and further refused to turn over the amount received amounting to P100,000.00. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for two years.
Guided by the foregoing, it is only proper that Atty. Doctor be meted the same penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.
In addition, the Court hereby orders Atty. Doctor to return the amount of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 which he received in connection with his professional engagement. It is well to note that while the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative liability and not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature — for instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. Here, since the aforesaid amounts were given by the complainant and received by Atty. Doctor in connection with the cases he handled for complainant and intrinsically linked to his professional engagement, the Court finds the return of the amounts thereof to be in order.
The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship. Any lawyer who does not live up to this duty must be prepared to take the consequences of his waywardness. 34
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of TWO (2) YEARS, effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Doctor is ORDERED to return to complainant Joann G. Minas the remaining balance of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 with legal interest, if it is still unpaid, within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Resolution. Failure to comply with this directive will merit the imposition of the more severe penalty.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Doctor as a member of the Bar, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and to the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J.C. Reyes, Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., see separate opinion.
A.B. Reyes, Jr.* and Hernando,*JJ., are on official leave.
Separate Opinions
LEONEN, J., dissenting:
Respondent violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, 1 Canon 18, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The penalty of a two (2)-year suspension is too lenient for the gravity of his transgressions. In my view, respondent should have been disbarred from the practice of law.
Joann G. Minas (complainant) owned a fishing vessel FV/JVPHIL 5, which had Filipino and Taiwanese crew members. Sometime in 2011, Taiwanese crew members Hsu Heng-Tse and Chen Fu Nan were apprehended by the Philippine Coast Guard and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Criminal cases were also filed against the rest of the crew members before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, the Maritime Industry Authority, and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Two other cases were filed against the vessel FV/JVPHIL 5 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales and Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo. 3
Complainant engaged Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr.'s (respondent) legal services to assist in these cases. 4
Respondent initially asked for a P100,000.00 acceptance fee, but later on increased the amount to P200,000.00. After receiving his acceptance fee, he later informed complainant that Hsu Heng-Tse and Chen Fu Nan could not leave the country as they had pending cases before the "Bureau of Immigration and Deportation." 5 He then asked for P400,000.00 to settle the immigration cases, which complainant paid. 6
A few days from receiving these amounts, respondent again sought out complainant to post what he termed as a "replevin bond" of P400,000.00 for the release of her vessel, FV/JVPHIL 5, from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as well as a US$50,000.00 "administrative fine" so her license would not be cancelled. Complainant paid both amounts and respondent assured her that her vessel would be released and that the case before the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources would be terminated. 7
Complainant discovered later on that no such "replevin bond" was posted and that she had been declared in default by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for respondent's failure to file the required Answer. 8
Thus, complainant demanded the return of the P800,000.00 and US$50,000.00 that she had paid. She was constrained to file this administrative case as she was only able to recover US$45,400.00 from respondent. 9
Respondent, for his part, first accused complainant for being a mere dummy for foreign fishers. 10 However, he admitted that he handled legal cases for complainant, albeit for a "reasonable acceptance fee of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 for each case and an appearance fee of P3,000.00 to P7,000.00" 11 that he was not able to collect. He counters that he could not discuss the case concerning his Taiwanese clients since these matters were privileged communications under the attorney-client relationship. He likewise alleged that he was unable to attend to the hearings in the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources since he had suffered a stroke, which affected his mobility and speech. 12
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, however, found respondent to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and initially recommended a six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, on the other hand, recommended that the penalty of suspension be increased to two (2) years, 13 which the ponencia now adopts. 14
With due respect, I must disagree. Respondent deserves no less than disbarment from the practice of law.
Our current geopolitical climate has placed the fishing industry under more scrutiny, especially in the Provinces of Palawan and Zambales, which are located near or around the West Philippine Sea. Our administrative agencies are also presently monitoring alleged poaching activities by foreign fishers over our waters.
Here, respondent received a total of P800,000.00 and US$50,000.00 from complainant, the owner of a fishing vessel with both Filipino and foreign crew members, to assist her in her legal troubles with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Bureau of Immigration, and various other courts and agencies. Despite respondent's receipt of inordinate amounts of money, he did not use these amounts for the purposes they were intended for. While respondent returned US$46,400.00 to complainant, he failed to account for or return the amounts of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 to complainant despite repeated demands.
Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
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. 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.
A lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and requires the lawyer to exercise fidelity and good faith in dealings with clients. 15 Thus, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 mandate that lawyers must account for any money or property collected from the client, and that any money or property held in trust for the client is deliverable upon the client's demand. 16 If a lawyer fails to return any of these amounts despite demand, the act may be considered a "gross violation of general morality, as well as professional ethics" 17 since it gives rise to the presumption that the lawyer violated the client's trust and appropriated the amounts for his or her own use.
Thus, in Huang v. Zambrano: 18
Once money or property is received by a lawyer on behalf of his client, the former has the obligation to account for the said money or property and remit the same immediately to the latter. To ignore consecutive follow-ups and demands from the client without any acceptable reason corrodes the client's trust and stains the legal profession. 19
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, on the other hand, mandates that lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 provide:
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Lawyers are not obligated to act as counsels for every member of the public that seek their services. However, when they do agree to take up a client's cause, they must not be neglectful of the legal matters entrusted to them and should always keep their clients updated as to the status of their cases. In Santiago v. Fojas: 20
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. 21
Here, cases before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources had been filed against complainant's vessel FV/JVPHIL 5. Immigration cases had also been filed against complainant's Taiwanese crew members.
Respondent had the temerity to extort P400,000.00 from complainant by misleading her to believe that he could have the immigration cases against the Taiwanese crew members settled. Unsatisfied by this amount, he further demanded P400,000.00 and US$50,000.00 from complainant as "administrative fines" to be able to get her fishing vessel back.
Owing to the sensitive nature of these cases, respondent had the duty, as a member of the Philippine Bar, to serve with fidelity and to maintain his client's trust. He miserably failed to do so. He not only was unable to retrieve complainant's fishing vessel or have the immigration cases settled, complainant was also deprived of her day in court, having been declared in default due to respondent's gross negligence.
The imposition of the appropriate penalty for violation of Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires "sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts." 22 On the other hand, penalties for the violation of Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 depends "on the amount involved and the severity of the lawyer's misconduct[.]" 23
This Court has long disbarred lawyers who, despite the receipt of their legal fees, did nothing to advance their clients' causes and refused to return the amounts paid despite demand.
In Villanueva v. Sta. Ana, 24 Atty. Teresita Sta. Ana was paid P144,000.00 to assist in securing a loan from a lending institution. When Atty. Sta. Ana asked for an additional amount of P109,000.00, complainant decided to forego Atty. Sta. Ana's services and demand the return of her money. This Court disbarred Atty. Sta. Ana for failing to return her client's money despite demand.
In Busiños v. Ricafort, 25 this Court disbarred a lawyer who misappropriated for his own use the amount of P30,000.00, representing money entrusted to him by his client, and the amount of P2,000.00, which he had demanded supposedly to answer for a bond.
In Docena v. Limon, 26 this Court disbarred a lawyer who demanded P10,000.00 from his clients to file a bond in court, only for the clients to later discover that no bond had been filed. This Court found that "[b]y extorting money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation, respondent Limon has reduced the law profession to a level so base, so low and dishonorable, and most contemptible." 27
In Overgaard v. Valdez, 28 this Court disbarred a lawyer who accepted US$16,854.00 as legal fees for a foreign client but failed to enter his appearance in any of his client's cases. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines initially recommended a penalty of a three (3)-year suspension from the practice of law. This Court found the recommended penalty insufficient and imposed the penalty of disbarment instead, since the lawyer's "incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in him as a member of the bar." 29
In Arellano University v. Mijares, 30 this Court disbarred a lawyer who was paid P500,000.00 to assist in the titling of property, but failed to do so, and refused to return the fee upon demand.
In Tarog v. Ricafort, 31 this Court disbarred a lawyer for misappropriating the amounts of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 from his clients and for betraying their trust.
In Mariano v. Laki, 32 this Court disbarred a lawyer who was paid P150,000.00 for the filing of a petition for annulment of marriage, only for the client to discover a year later that no such petition was ever filed.
In this case, if this Court were to include respondent's acceptance fee of P200,000.00, complainant had given respondent a total of P1 million and US$50,000.00 (or about P2.5 million) to assist her in the retrieval of her fishing vessel and the protection of her crew member's rights, which had included both Filipinos and foreigners. Respondent not only failed in performing his legal duties, but he failed to return the full amounts received despite complainant's demand as well.
This Court has disbarred lawyers for less odious behaviors in cases involving misappropriation of much lesser amounts. Respondent's behavior in this case was worse. The amounts extorted from his client were excessive.
By the totality of his acts, respondent has grossly transgressed upon the principles of professional ethics. He should not remain as a member of the Bar.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISBAR Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. from the practice of law for violating Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and to RETURN the amounts of P800,000.00 and US$4,600.00 to complainant.
Footnotes
PER CURIAM:
* On official leave.
1.Rollo, pp. 2-8.
2.Id. at 5-6.
3.Id. at 2-3.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 29-36.
9.Id. at 29.
10.Id. at 30.
11.Id. at 31.
12.Id. at 31-32.
13.Id. at 32-35.
14.Id. at 110-118.
15.Id. at 118.
16.Id. at 115-116.
17.Id. at 116.
18.Id. at 142-143.
19.Id. at 142.
20.Id. at 140-141.
21.Go v. Buri, A.C. No. 12296, December 4, 2018.
22. 685 Phil. 687 (2012).
23.Id. at 693.
24.Rollo, p. 7.
25.Id. at 8-9.
26.Id. at 116.
27.Id. at 112-114.
28.Mercado v. Vitriolo, 498 Phil. 49, 60 (2005).
29.Id. at 61.
30.Go v. Buri, supra note 21.
31. 705 Phil. 321 (2013).
32. 740 Phil. 393 (2014).
33. 763 Phil. 175 (2015).
34.De Borja v. Mendez, Jr., A.C. No. 11185, July 4, 2018.
LEONEN, J., dissenting:
1. 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. 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.
2. CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
3.Ponencia, pp. 1-2.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. Prior to 1987, the Bureau of Immigration was named the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. The Administrative Code, however, renamed the agency simply as the "Bureau of Immigration."
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 2-3.
9.Id. at 3.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 4.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 5.
15.See Spouses Lopez v. Limos, 780 Phil. 113 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
16.See CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 16, Rules 16.01 and 16.03.
17.Egger v. Duran, 795 Phil. 9, 17 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
18. A.C. No. 12460, March 26, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65105> [Per Curiam, En Banc].
19.Id.
20. 318 Phil. 79 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Second Division].
21.Id. at 86-87.
22.Sorensen v. Pozon, A.C. No. 11334, January 7, 2019, <http.//elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64926> [Per Acting C.J. Carpio, Second Division].
23.Tarog v. Ricarfort, 660 Phil. 618, 635 (2011) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
24.315 Phil. 795 (1995) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
25.347 Phil. 687 (1997) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
26.356 Phil. 570 (1998) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
27.Docena v. Limon, 356 Phil. 570, 575 (1998) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
28.588 Phil. 422 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
29.Overgaard v. Valdez, 588 Phil. 422, 434 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
30.620 Phil. 93 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
31.660 Phil. 618 (2011) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
32.A.C. No. 11978, September 25, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64567> [Per Curiam, En Banc].