THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9702. April 4, 2018.]
ROBERTO V. ONG, complainant,vs. ATTY. TRANQUILINO F. MERIS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9702 (Roberto V. Ong v. Atty. Tranquilino F. Meris) — Before the Court is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 for disbarment filed by Roberto V. Ong (complainant) against Atty. Tranquilino F. Meris (respondent) for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) and the Lawyer's Oath.
The Antecedents
Complainant alleged that sometime in November 2004, he engaged the services of respondent for the registration and transfer of a real property within six (6) months and entrusted to him the sum of Three Hundred Two Thousand Pesos (P302,000.00) as cost of expenses for the transfer thereof and for respondent's professional fees. After the lapse of the six (6) month period promised by respondent, complainant tried to follow-up on the progress of the transfer and registration but respondent could not be reached. It was only on March 18, 2006 when respondent replied through a Letter 2 asking for more patience and promised to deliver the title of the property on or before the end of April 2006. Complainant frequently called respondent in his office but the latter allegedly avoided his calls.
On June 21, 2006, complainant received another Letter 3 from respondent promising to deliver the title of the property on or before July 11, 2006 and assured him that the money, less the expenses incurred, was in his possession. Respondent, however, failed to deliver the title. Hence, complainant was constrained to seek help from another lawyer to recover his money. Despite several demands from complainant's counsel, respondent failed to deliver the title or return the money. In his Letter 4 dated August 29, 2006, respondent stated that he was determined to fulfill his undertaking with petitioner but did not have the financial means to do so.
Consequently, complainant filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12 (MTC) where respondent was ordered to return, among others, the P302,000.00. 5 Again, respondent failed to return the money and communicate with complainant.
Complainant then filed the instant case for disbarment against respondent. He alleged that respondent: (1) held in trust the amount of P302,000.00 pursuant to their attorney-client relationship; (2) failed to account for the said amount received from complainant; (3) failed to keep the funds separate and distinct from his own because he misappropriated the same; and (4) failed to deliver the funds and property despite repeated demand. Thus, he violated the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 16, 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code.
In his Answer, 6 respondent averred that sometime in July 2003, Leonardo Legacion sought his legal services in connection with the transaction that he and his family were intending to enter with complainant, particularly the extrajudicial settlement of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 88357 owned by their late father Vicente Legacion, and for the subsequent sale thereof to complainant. Respondent prepared the Deed of Conditional Sale 7 and the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with conveyance in favor of complainant.
Apparently, the Legacion family agreed to pay respondent Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) for his legal services. Respondent claimed that after the signing of the deeds, the Legacion family instructed complainant to hand over to respondent the payment of the property to be made in two (2) checks. The first check amounted to P302,000.00 for the estimated expenses for the transfer of title and the P60,000.00 legal services; and the second check for the balance of the purchase price. But before he could undertake the transfer of the title, Leonardo told him that he asked for the computation of expenses from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the amount given to respondent was in excess of P100,000.00; that as agreed upon by Leonardo and respondent, the latter returned the P80,000.00 to the former as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt; and that when respondent processed the papers with the BIR, it turned out that the money left was insufficient to cover the expenses.
Respondent further asserted that when complainant inquired from him about the progress of the transfer of the property, he was annoyed when he found out that the P80,000.00 was returned to Leonardo. Because of complainant's outbursts and in order to appease him, respondent promised to do something and agreed to return the P80,000.00 even if he had no money. Respondent added that complainant became unreasonable as he demanded the return of the full amount of P302,000.00. Respondent claimed that he turned over the deeds to complainant so that whatever the final outcome as far as expenses were concerned, it would easily be resolved.
In a Resolution 8 dated July 15, 2013, the Court resolved, among others, to refer the complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
Thereafter, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) conducted a mandatory conference and hearings.
Recommendation of the IBP
In its Report and Recommendation 9 dated July 30, 2014, the Commission recommended the dismissal of the complaint because of failure to present convincing and satisfactory proof to warrant the disbarment of respondent. It stated that complainant did not deny the averments made by respondent but instead capitalized on respondent's failure to verify his answer and to indicate his MCLE number and its date of issue. The Commission further noted that complainant filed a case for collection of a sum of money but despite a favorable judgment, never moved for its execution. It believed respondent's claim that: (1) the money was part of the payment for the purchase of the property owned by the Legacion family; (2) he kept it because it belonged to his clients; (3) he endorsed the deeds to complainant for the registration of the title but until the present, the latter failed to account his expenses for the registration.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-077 10 dated January 31, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission, as follows:
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 considering that the Complaint lacks merit, the case against Respondent is hereby DISMISSED. 11
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the IBP-Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XXII-2017-938. 12
The Ruling of the Court
The Court disagrees with the recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors. There is substantial evidence that respondent violated Canon 16, Rules 16.01, 16.02 and 16.03 of the Code.
Existence of an Attorney-Client
The Court finds that the evidence on record supports the conclusion that an attorney-client relationship existed between complainant and respondent. Complainant engaged the services of respondent for the registration and transfer of a certain real property in his name within six (6) months. In payment for the costs thereof, including respondent's professional fees, complainant entrusted to him the sum of P302,000.00.
Respondent wrote no less than three (3) letters in express recognition of his obligation towards complainant.
In his March 18, 2006 letter to complainant, respondent specifically stated therein that he was sorry for the delay and that he was doing his best "to do the work which you had entrusted to me." 13
Further, in his June 21, 2006 letter addressed to complainant, respondent reiterated his undertaking "to deliver your title" and acknowledged that "[t]he Three Hundred Two Thousand Pesos (P302,000.00) you gave to me less the money taken by Legacion and my attorney's fees together with the title are still in my possession." 14
Finally, in his August 29, 2006 letter, respondent stated that "[a]s I had informed you before, I am determined to fulfill my undertaking with you. It is only unfortunate that I don't have the financial means to do it at present." 15
In addition to his admission, respondent was adjudged liable to complainant for the sum of P302,000.00 by the MTC in its July 7, 2008 Judgment. 16 It is irrelevant that complainant did not move for the execution of this judgment. The fact remains that respondent was adjudged by a court of law to be liable to complainant for the sum of P302,000.00.
In the face of his express admission and the said MTC judgment, the Court cannot lend any credence to the story presented by respondent in his pleadings. It is plain as day that complainant engaged respondent's services for the registration and transfer of a real property within six (6) months and entrusted to him the amount of P302,000.00 in connection therewith.
Violation by Respondent of Canon 16,
The pertinent provisions of the Code are as follows:
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.
RULE 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
RULE 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client due or upon demand.
In line with the highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship, Canon 16 of the Code requires a lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. 17 Rule 16.01 requires a lawyer to account for such money or property. Meanwhile, Rule 16.02 requires him to keep separate the funds of each client from his own and those of others. Lastly, Rule 16.03 requires him to deliver the funds and property when due or upon demand.
The Court stated in Del Mundo v. Atty. Capistrano18 that:
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. 19
In the instant case, complainant entrusted to respondent the sum of P302,000.00 for the transfer and registration of a real property in his name within six (6) months. The period of six (6) months lapsed with respondent failing to either deliver the promised title or return the money. In fact, respondent has yet to return the money entrusted to him by complainant despite the lapse of more or less thirteen (13) years since November 2004. His failure to return the same, despite repeated demands of complainant, gives rise to the presumption that he misappropriated the same. This conduct on the part of respondent constitutes a gross violation of the Code and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. The Court cannot countenance such behavior from a lawyer.
To stress, 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 four-fold 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. 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. 20
In several cases, the penalty imposed on lawyers for violating Canon 16 of the Code has ranged from suspension for six months, one year, two years, even up to disbarment, depending on the circumstances of each case. 21
In Yuzon v. Atty. Agleron, 22 the lawyer received money from his client for the purchase of a house and lot. The sale did not materialize. Despite demand, the lawyer failed to return the money to his client. Hence, the Court imposed upon him the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice of law.
In Campos, Jr. v. Atty. Estebal, 23 the lawyer was engaged by clients to secure tourist visas to the United States. However, he failed to secure or apply for the same on their behalf. He also failed to return his clients' money despite demand. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year.
In Medina, et al. v. Atty. Lizardo, 24 the clients entrusted their lawyer with two (2) owner's duplicate copies of Transfer Certificates of Title. Despite demand, he failed to return the same to his clients. The Court thus suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer requires sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. 25 Considering the totality of the circumstances in the present case, including the fact that thirteen (13) years or so have passed since the funds were entrusted by complainant to respondent, the Court finds a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law appropriate as penalty for respondent's misconduct.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. TRANQUILINO F. MERIS is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of this judgment. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into the respondent's personal record. Copies shall likewise be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2.Id. at 8.
3.Id. at 9.
4.Id.at 11.
5. Judgment dated July 7, 2008; id. at 18-20.
6.Id. at 33-39.
7.Id. at 40-42.
8.Id. at 112.
9.Id. at 158-161.
10.Id. at 157.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 187-188.
13.Supra note 2.
14.Supra note 3.
15.Supra note 4.
16.Id. at 18-20.
17.Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, 789 Phil. 619, 623 (2016).
18. 685 Phil. 687 (2012).
19. Id. at 693.
20. Id.
21. Supra note 17.
22. A.C. No. 10684, January 24, 2018.
23. 792 Phil. 542 (2016).
24. A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017.
25. Supra note 17 at 626.