THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9616. June 3, 2019.][Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821]
DALMACIO B. SUGATA-ON, REPRESENTED BY MELCHOR SUGATA-ON, complainant, vs.ATTY. ANGELES R. ORQUIA, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 3, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821] (Dalmacio B. Sugata-on, represented by Melchor Sugata-on v. Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr.). — For resolution is an Administrative Complaint 1 filed on September 6, 2006 by complainant Dalmacio B. Sugata-on, represented by Melchor Sugata-on, against Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr. for his suspension or disbarment due to alleged gross professional misconduct in failing to perform the legal services he was engaged to render despite repeated demands and full payment of his attorney's fees and other expenses related thereto.
The Report and Recommendation 2 dated September 20, 2010 of Commissioner Cecilio C. Villanueva, Commission of Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), follows:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr. ("Respondent") by Dalmacio B. Sugata-on ("Complainant"), represented by his Attorney-in-fact Melchor J. Sugata-on due to alleged gross professional misconduct.
Sometime in May 2000, complainant allegedly engaged the services of the respondent in San Jose, Antique to transfer to his name the titles of six (6) lots he purchased from different persons in Antique. He turned-over to the respondent's wife, Ms. Helen Orquia, the transfer documents and the corresponding certificates of titles and paid the total amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php135,000.00). The sum was paid on installment as follows: the sum of Php25,000.00 on 19 May 2000; the sum of Php100,000.00 on 22 May 2000; and the sum of Php10,000.00 on 21 July 2000. The payment was duly receipted and signed by the wife of the respondent. The amount was supposed to cover "x x x attorney's fees, processing and legal fees, publication and other miscellaneous expenses, including BIR taxes for the transfer of all six (6) certificates of title x x x."
After six (6) years, the certificates of titles were not yet transferred in the name of the complainant. Sometime in June 2006, complainant thru his nephew Melchor Sugata-on demanded from respondent to return all the documents as well as the money paid. Of the six (6) certificates of titles only three (3) were returned, while the other documents of transfer and the money paid were not. CAIHTE
Hence, complainant[,] through his counsel[,] wrote a demand letter dated 18 July 2006 to the respondent demanding return of the documents he endorsed as well as the money paid. In a reply letter dated 10 August 2006, respondent denied that the complainant engaged his services. He explained that it was his wife and a certain Mrs. Sueza Cebuano Gerona who undertook the responsibility for the transaction and not his law office.
Not satisfied with the explanation of the respondent, this instant complaint was filed on 06 September 2006. In an Order dated 08 September 2006, the Commission on Bar Discipline required the respondent to file his answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order.
On 11 September 2006, Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona deposited the amount of Php50,000.00 to the account of complainant's counsel, Atty. Alexander G. Gironella. She also deposited the amount of Php85,000.00 to the same account as evidenced by deposit slips.
Respondent filed his answer on 11 October 2006. A notice of mandatory conference dated 23 January 2007 directed the parties to appear before the commission on 09 March 2007. During the mandatory conference, the parties agreed on the following stipulations:
(1) That Mrs. Orquia signed the receipt for the amount for Atty. Orquia;
(2) That the amount of Php135,000.00 was returned to the complainant;
(3) That the secretary of the respondent never received the money/documents;
(4) That three titles were returned by Mrs. Orquia to a certain Melchor Sugata-on, representative of the complainant;
The parties also defined the issue of the case, which is "whether or not the respondent had violated his oath of office as lawyer and whether he should be liable for disciplinary penalty or ordered to return the titles to the complainant as well as pay the proper damages."
The parties were then ordered to submit their respective position paper[s]. Respondent submitted his position paper on 24 April 2007 and a supplemental position paper on 18 July 2007. The complainant, on the other hand, submitted his position paper on 10 July 2007.
II. COMPLAINANT'S CAUSES OF ACTION
The complainant mainly alleged that respondent was grossly negligent because the latter delayed and failed to transfer the certificates of titles to the name of complainant, after receiving full payment for the services engaged. Hence, respondent has violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibilities, specifically:
"CANON 3 — A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 — A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement of claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
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 16.03 — 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.
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. DETACa
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
In support of complainant's claim, he presented acknowledgment receipts of the money, all signed by the wife of the respondent. He also presented sworn statements of his nephew, Melchor J. Sugata-on, and his niece, Sonia G. Sugata-on.
Based on the affidavit of Melchor J. Sugata-on, he accompanied his uncle to the law office of the respondent to follow up on the development on the subject transaction sometime in May or April 2005. They were told by the respondent and his wife to give them more time to process the documents. Also, for several times after the said visit, he would follow up the same transaction to the respondent and his wife but they would give the same response. It was also stated in the affidavit that he was instructed by his uncle to retrieve all the documents endorsed by his uncle to the respondent and his wife. He said that he was only able to retrieve three (3) of the seven (7) certificates of titles.
While the affidavit of Sonia G. Sugata-on states that sometime in May 2000, she was requested by her uncle to follow up with the respondent the subject transaction. She made subsequent follow ups but was consistently told only promises to finish the processing of documents. She also stated that sometime in June 2006, her uncle instructed her cousin, Melchor J. Sugata-on, to get the titles and other papers from the respondent. However, her cousin was only able to retrieve three (3) titles.
Complainant further claim[s] in his affidavit, that he personally turned over the documents to the wife of respondent, in the presence of respondent himself. Also, it was stated that he made several follow-ups of the development of the transaction to the respondent. He claimed that the respondent, at that time, has made several excuses explaining the delay in the processing of the documents.
In addition to the prayer for disbarment, complainant specifically prayed that:
"2. Respondent be ordered to return the titles and other documents his law office received from complainant, thru his wife Helen Orquia;
3. Respondent be ordered to pay the cost of money, or interests, on the Php135,000.00 his law office received from the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum from July 22, 2000; and
4. Respondent be ordered, if proper, to pay complainant at least Php50,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees for forcing complainant to litigate."
III. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSES
In his defense, respondent mainly stated that he has no knowledge of the transaction regarding the transfer of titles to the name of the complainant.
Respondent further explained that he had not received the amount of Php135,000.00, allegedly representing expenses for registration, transfer taxes and attorney's fees. In support thereof, respondent presented the sworn statements of his law firm's secretary Felipa Jordan, former IBP Antique Chapter Secretary, Sueza C. Gerona, and Record Officer of the Registry of Deeds of Antique, Gilmar Nabor.
Ms. Felipa Jordan, in her affidavit, supports the allegations of the respondent. She stated that respondent's law office did not enter into a contract with the complainant. She stated that all the transactions of the office are duly recorded and all payments are evidenced by a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) receipt. However, the subject transaction was neither recorded nor properly receipted. Further, she claimed that respondent was even surprised that he is involved in the present complaint as the latter did not even know the complainant.
Based on the affidavit of Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona, former IBP Secretary of Antique Chapter since 1981 to 2005, sometime in May 2000, the complainant and Mrs. Helen Orquia sought her assistance to process the transfer of six (6) certificates of title in the name of the complainant that the latter purchased from other persons. She stated that she accepted the transaction with the consent of the complainant. Hence, the complainant endorsed the certificates of titles and documents of transfer to her. Mrs. Orquia offered the amount of Php125,000.00 for the legal and miscellaneous expenses needed to effect the transfer. Subsequently, she also received the amount of Php10,000.00. She presented a sworn receipt dated 22 July 2000. She further stated that while the documents were being transferred, the IBP Building in San Jose, Antique adjoining the office of the Register of Deeds of Antique was burned, and consequently, the records inside the premises were virtually in disarray. Hence, there was a delay in compliance with her obligation to the complainant. aDSIHc
Upon demand by the complainant, she later on returned the documents and corresponding three (3) titles to the complainant in April 2005 thru the wife of the respondent. Upon verification with Ms. Gilmar Nabor, employee of the Register of Deeds of Antique, the remaining three (3) titles were already taken by Melchor J. Sugata-on, since he was in a hurry to process the documents. Lastly, she already returned the full amount she received based on the transaction. She deposited the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php135,000.00) to the account of the complainant's counsel.
Based on the affidavit of Ms. Gilmar Nabor, employee of the Register of Deeds of Antique, sometime in 2000, Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona endorsed the processing of the transfer of the certificates of title to the name of the complainant. Due to the accidental burning of the adjoining building of the Office of the Register of Deeds, there was a delay in the processing of the subject documents. Hence, he was constrained to return the six (6) certificates of title. He initially turned over three (3) titles to the wife of the respondent, while the three (3) remaining titles to the representative of the complainant, Melchor Sugata-on. He further stated that the respondent has never gone to the office of the Register of Deeds in San Jose, Antique to process the subject documents.
IV. FINDINGS
Based on the records, this Commissioner finds that the respondent should be reprimanded for his negligence and failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.
There was attorney-client
Complainant's evidence was sufficient to prove that he engaged the services of the respondent. As held by the Supreme Court:
"An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces or voluntarily permits the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have employed the lawyer on any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for, neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received in matters pertinent to his profession."
Complainant stated that he personally went to the law office of the respondent, where he was assured that the legal work requested would be performed. Complainant, relying on the assurance of Mrs. Sugata-on, paid the amount required for attorney's fees, processing, legal fees, publication and other miscellaneous expenses. Handwritten receipts and provisional receipts signed by the wife of the respondent were presented by the complainant.
It was also alleged that the complainant turned over all the documents needed for the transfer of the properties in his name to the wife of the respondent, in the presence of the respondent himself. This fact was not denied by the respondent.
There were also constant follow-ups made to the respondent himself. It is worthy to note that these follow-ups were made not only to the wife of the respondent but also with the respondent himself at his law office in 2000. In 2001, complainant was informed by the respondent and his wife that the papers were being processed. The same excuse was made in 2002, when complainant visited respondent. In fact, at that time, complainant was even made to sign some papers since it was relayed that the titles were ready for release by the Register of Deeds. The same excuse was given when the niece of the complainant followed up the development of the transaction. In 2005, complainant even visited the respondent and discovered that he had not yet done his work. Respondent even pleaded one last chance to comply with his obligation but he still failed to do so.
These instances were not denied by respondent. Respondent only claims that he has no knowledge of the transaction, which is improbable in the instant case. The aforementioned follow ups should have prompted him to act accordingly. Even if it was not him personally who accepted the money from the complainant, an attorney-client relationship is already present. As held by the Supreme Court, "The employment of a counsel or the authority to employ an attorney, it might be pointed out, need not be proved in writing; such fact could be inferred from circumstantial evidence."
The claim of the respondent that another person, Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona, assumed responsibility of the obligation does not disprove the attorney-client relationship. Neither was the involvement of Mr. Gilmar Nabor remove the respondent from his relationship with the complainant. From the circumstances surrounding the said transaction, the respondent has assumed responsibility for the processing of the documents as he has deliberately led the complainant to believe that he was capable and in the process of transferring the titles to the name of the respondent. ETHIDa
It is also worthy to note that the wife of the respondent did not give a sworn statement to support the claims of her husband. The respondent's wife being the person with whom the alleged confusion arose.
Respondent failed to act with
The failure of the respondent in performing the acts required of him constitutes violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
As held by the Supreme Court, "This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation." Respondent has been remiss of his obligation to the client who has in fact paid the required fees for the transfer of the titles to his name.
There is want of diligence when the respondent failed to even start with the transfer of the document despite receipt of money from the complainant. Had not the complainant demanded for the return of the documents and the money, the respondent would not even bother to pay attention to the transaction at hand.
The respondent has also failed to inform the complainant of the alleged fire in the adjacent office of the Register of Deeds of Antique sometime in 2003, which supposedly delayed the processing of documents. "It is the duty of an attorney to advise his client promptly whenever he has any information to give which is important that the client receive."
More importantly, despite repeated follow ups by the complainant, respondent did not even bother to determine whether the said obligation was being done. He has given several excuses for the delay, which he did not deny, bolstering the validity of the engagement of his services.
Noteworthy is the fact that complainant has given a consideration in engaging the services of the respondent. In an almost similar case, the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for his failure to return client's funds which were given to him for the expenses for the transfer of title over real property and in payment for his legal services. The Supreme Court held:
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The lawyer's failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer [of] funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
Conversely, in the present case, although the money was returned to the complainant, the other documents endorsed were not returned. The length of time within which the consideration was returned raises the presumption of misappropriation of funds in violation of the professional ethics.
"A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue representing a client should inform the latter of his predicament and ask that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who can study the situation and work out a solution." For six (6) years, the respondent has led the complainant to believe that the documents were being processed only to later on return the money and other documents without any development in the transaction. Clearly, the case is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As held by the Supreme Court.
The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling complainant's case and, subsequently, failing to render the services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. cSEDTC
Respondent is liable for
"The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of the client's cause makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed in him. It is a breach of his undertaking with his client. To warrant suspension or disbarment, however, the negligence or carelessness in the performance of duty should only be gross in character but should have caused material prejudice to the client's interest as well. Mere negligence or inattention which produces no pecuniary damage to the client may only justify, reprimand or censure except when the breach of duty to client also constitutes a gross violation of obligation to the court, in which case, a severer sanction such as suspension from the practice of law, may be warranted."
Although there was a clear violation of the Code of Professional Ethics by the respondent, complainant has failed to present material prejudice to the client's interest. It was admitted that the money given as consideration for the services engaged were returned by the respondent thru another person, hence, the penalty of reprimand is in order.
As for the other reliefs prayed for, it is well settled that "Disbarment cases are sui generis. Being neither criminal nor civil in nature, these are not intended to inflict penal or civil sanctions. The main question to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice."
Hence, complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. As held by the Supreme Court:
"Complainant's prayer for damages is denied. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken solely for the public welfare. As held in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, the attorney is called upon to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice."
In sum, respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client constitutes violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility which warrant the imposition of administrative sanction against him.
Thus, respondent should be REPRIMANDED.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds sufficient reason to discipline respondent and recommends that the respondent be REPRIMANDED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasig City, September 20, 2010. 3
In Resolution No. XX-2011-301 dated December 10, 2011, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for Atty. Orquia's failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client, suspended him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, directed him to account for all the documents and to return all the documents including the three (3) titles, plus payment of interest of 12% per annum of the amount received from complainant within sixty (60) days from the finality of the decision and to notify the IBP within sixty (60) days from compliance thereof, otherwise, severe penalty shall be imposed.
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to AFFIRM the same. Respondent Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He is further directed to account for all the documents and to return all of the same, including the three (3) titles, and to pay interest of twelve (12%) per annum of the amount received from complainant within sixty (60) days from the finality of this Resolution and to notify the IBP within sixty (60) days from compliance thereof. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2.Id. at 119-129.
3.Id. at 121-131. (Citations omitted)