FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9022. June 10, 2019.]
JHOANNA MAE M. PACIFICAR, complainant, vs.ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9022 (Jhoanna Mae M. Pacificar v. Atty. Leonardo M. Real). — Jhoanna Mae M. Pacificar (complainant) filed a letter-complaint 1 against Atty. Leonardo M. Real (respondent) for unprofessional and unjust conduct due to unaccomplished legal services for the settlement of an estate.
Ma. Juvy M. Pacificar, complainant's mother, died on December 26, 2009 and left several properties including a real property in Binalbagan, Negros accidental covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-168439.
Complainant wanted to sell the property but it was still registered in her mother's name and the owner's copy of the title was lost. Thus, complainant consulted with respondent who advised her that title to the property should first be transferred in complainant's name. To do so, complainant shall: 1) execute an affidavit of loss regarding the owner's copy of the title; 2) file a petition in court for the issuance of a new title; and 3) execute an affidavit of extra-judicial settlement of estate and pay the estate tax and other fees. Respondent undertook to perform them and as payment for his professional services, asked for P159,500.00. 2
As of September 23, 2010, complainant paid respondent a total of P155,500.00. 3
In April 2011, complainant inquired on the status of the settlement of her mother's estate. Respondent told her he needed more time to resolve some problems with the property and assured her that he was working on it. 4 Complainant verified with the Registry of Deeds of Bacolod City, which reported that respondent did not make any transaction with the office. Neither was the petition for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy of the title filed in court. Complainant demanded the return/refund of the money she paid to respondent but respondent ignored her. 5
Unsatisfied, complainant filed the letter-complaint on June 8, 2011.
Respondent denied the allegations thrown against him and averred: 1) for his services, he and complainant agreed that he shall be paid 15% of the proceeds in the selling of the estate or its equivalent and all expenses and taxes due in connection with the settlement of the estate shall be shouldered by the complainant; 2) complainant submitted incomplete records pertaining to her mother's estate; 3) he already prepared the required Affidavit of Settlement of Estate on August 2, 2010. He also caused the publication of the affidavit of adjudication and drafted the petition for reconstitution of title; 4) in the course of his work, he discovered that complainant's mother owns another property in Binangonan, Rizal. With respect to the Binalbagan, Negros Occidental property, respondent discovered that there are some issues involving it such as non-payment of realty tax, among others. He was also subjected to threats from complainant's family members who were also interested in the properties; and 5) complainant did not want to follow his advice as complainant did not want to pay the estate tax. Complainant also refused to sign the petition for reconstitution. Respondent insisted that he did not abandon complainant's case and he is willing to continue their client-lawyer relationship provided that the legal process will be strictly followed and all taxes due to the estate will be settled. 6
On November 14, 2012 Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor issued his Report and Recommendation 7 and found respondent guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.03, and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the amount of P75,000.00 within 30 days from notice with legal interest from June 2012 until fully paid.
On June 21, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2013-779 8 which adopted and approved respondent's suspension from the practice of law with modification that the suspension shall be for three months.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on October 30, 2013. 9
In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-402 10 issued on August 8, 2014, the IBP denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. It affirmed its previous ruling in Resolution No. XX-2013-779 but with further modification increasing the penalty from suspension from the practice of law from three months to two years and retained the order to return to complainant the amount of P75,000.00 with legal interest within 30 days from receipt of notice.
Consequently, on March 3, 2015, respondent filed a petition for review 11 which seeks to reverse: 1) Resolution No. XX-2013-779 dated June 21, 2013 recommending suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three months; and 2) Resolution No. XXI-2014-402 dated August 8, 2014 recommending suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two years.
On July 22, 2016, complainant filed her comment/opposition to the petition for review 12 to which respondent replied on August 15, 2016. 13
On November 23, 2016, this Court issued a Resolution 14 referring the matter to the IBP, as this case has been previously referred to it for investigation, report and recommendation or resolution.
On June 17, 2017, the IBP issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-1249 15 with attached Memorandum 16 resolving the case. The IBP affirmed its previous ruling finding respondent guilty of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.03 and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility but modifying the suspension from the practice of law to one year and to return P75,000.00 to the complainant. The IBP also clarified that considering the services respondent already rendered, he is entitled to a reasonable compensation of P80,000.00 based on the principle of quantum meruit.
We concur with the findings of the IBP.
Under their agreement, respondent was hired to settle the estate of complainant's mother, transfer the properties under complainant's name, and sell them. However, while respondent made preparatory works, he failed to accomplish any of the tasks he was engaged to do.
In fact, respondent was negligent in the performance of his undertaking. As the Investigating Commissioner correctly pointed out, respondent prepared certain documents for the settlement of the estate left by complainant's mother and undertook investigation regarding the properties but none of these documents, for unknown reasons, were implemented or filed with the concerned government agencies which would benefit the complainant. 17
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. 18
More, respondent failed to return the money complainant paid him despite complainant's demands. When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if not used accordingly, the money must be returned immediately to the client. Failure to return the money to his client despite repeated demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity. 19
the n Court imposed the penalty of suspension for a period of six months. 21
Likewise, we are aware that this is not the first time respondent became the subject of an administrative complaint for neglecting a client's affairs and failure to return money despite demand. In Fabie v. Atty. Real, 22 we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months with a stern warning that commission of any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
We temper the penalty, however, because respondent already made preparatory works relative to his engagement, he discovered issues relative to the estate which complicated the matter referred to him and that only nine months have passed from the time he was paid in September to the filing of the letter-complaint in June. For these reasons, we deem that suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months and the restitution of P75,000.00 to complainant are sufficient.
Meanwhile, the remaining P80,500.00 corresponds to the services respondent already rendered based on quantum meruit.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonardo M. Real is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.03 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) MONTHS effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Also, he is ORDERED to return the amount of P75,000.00 to complainant * within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Resolution.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their guidance.
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 109.
4.Id. at 103-108.
5.Id. at 1-2.
6.Id. at 111-127.
7.Id. at 133-142.
8.Id. at 132.
9.Id. at 143-185.
10.Id. at 226.
11.Id. at 195-224.
12. Id. at 481-483.
13. Id. at 487-493.
14. Id. at 495.
15. Id. at 501.
16. Id. at 503-507.
17. Id. at 474.
18. Lad Vda. de Dominguez v. Agleron, Sr., A.C. No. 5359, March 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 219, 222.
19. Olayta-Camba v. Bongon, A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015, 754 SCRA 205, 211.
20. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy. Missing Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.
21. See Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Airy. Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA 734, 745, citing Aranda v. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 336; Heirs of Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag, A.C. No. 5760, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 111 and Abiero v. Juanino, A.C. No. 5302, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 1, See also Sps. Montecillo and Salonoy v. Atty. Gatchalian, A.C. No. 8371, June 28, 2017, 828 SCRA 222.
22. A.C. No. 10574 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3047), September 20, 2016, 803 SCRA 388.
* Revision: respondent changed to complainant.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.