January 2015 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > January 2015 Decisions >
A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015 - MARILEN G. SOLIMAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, Respondent.:
A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015 - MARILEN G. SOLIMAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, Respondent.
EN BANC
A.C. No. 10568 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015
MARILEN G. SOLIMAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.:
This is an administrative complaint1 filed by Marilen G. Soliman (Soliman) against Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy (Atty. Amboy) for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In her complaint, Soliman claimed that she engaged the services of Atty. Amboy on May 27, 2007 in connection with a partition case.� In accordance with the Retainer Agreement between the parties, Soliman agreed to pay Atty. Amboy P50,000.00 as acceptance fee.� Upon the latter�s engagement, Soliman paid her P25,000.00.� Later on, Atty. Amboy advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case since the other co-owners of the property were amenable to the partition thereof.� Instead, Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the said property from the co-owners to the individual owners; the P25,000.00 already paid to her was then treated as payment for her professional services.2chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In November 2008, Soliman gave Atty. Amboy P16,700.00 as payment for the transfer tax.� In the second quarter of 2009, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles to the property because of the failure of the other co-owners to submit certain documents. Atty. Amboy then told Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a fee of P80,000.00.� On June 17, 2009, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that her contact in the RD agreed to reduce the amount to P50,000.00.3chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Meanwhile, Soliman deposited the amount of P8,900.00 to Atty. Amboy�s bank account as payment for the real property tax for the year 2009.� Thereafter, Soliman deposited the amount of P50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy�s bank account as payment for the latter�s contact in the RD.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On October 16, 2009, Atty. Amboy informed Soliman that the certificates of title to the property were then only awaiting the signature of the authorized officer.� However, Atty. Amboy failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-owners to the subject property.5chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On January 6, 2010, Atty. Amboy�s secretary informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for an additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title.� Soliman then refused to further pay the amount being asked by Atty. Amboy�s secretary.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Thereafter, Soliman kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any update on the release of the said titles, but the latter was not responding to her queries. On July 7, 2010, Soliman and Atty. Amboy�s secretary went to the office of a certain Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila.� Soliman asked Atty. Marasigan if he received the P50,000.00 as payment for the release of the said titles.� Atty. Marasigan denied having received any amount to facilitate the release of the titles and claimed that the reason why the same could not be processed was that Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Soliman further claimed that Atty. Amboy thereafter refused to release the pertinent documents she gave to her for the processing of the titles to the property or give back the P50,000.00 that was already paid to her.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
For her part, Atty. Amboy admitted that she had a retainer agreement with Soliman, but denied having received any amount from the latter pursuant to the said agreement.� She claimed that the retainer agreement was not implemented since the partition case was not instituted.� She claimed that she merely undertook to research, gather and collate all documents required in the partition and in the transfer of the titles from the co-owners to the individual owners.� She denied having failed to submit the relevant documents to the RD which caused the delay in the processing of the said titles.� She likewise denied having asked Soliman for P50,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said titles.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On May 29, 2012, after due proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a Report and Recommendation,10 which recommended the suspension of Atty. Amboy from the practice of law for six (6) months.� The Investigating Commissioner opined that Atty. Amboy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with Soliman.� It also opined that she failed to inform the latter of the status of the proceedings for the issuance of the said titles.
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution,11 which adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, albeit with the modification that the period of Atty.� Amboy�s� suspension� from� the� practice� of� law� was� increased� from six (6) months to two (2) years and that she was ordered to return the entire amount she received from Soliman.
Atty. Amboy sought a reconsideration12 of the Resolution dated March 20, 2013, but it was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution13 dated March 21, 2014.
After a thorough perusal of the respective allegations of the parties and the circumstances of this case, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors.
The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.14� A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client�s request for information.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property.� It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title.
To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount of P50,000.00 to be paid to her �contact� inside the office of the RD in order to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title.� Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title.� Instead of procuring the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked for an additional P10,000.00 from Soliman.
Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client.� Atty. Amboy�s acts undermined the legal processes, which she swore to uphold and defend.� In swearing to the oath, Atty. Amboy bound herself to respect the law and legal processes.
The Court further finds improper the refusal of Atty. Amboy to return the amount of P50,000.00 which she paid in order to facilitate the release of the certificates of title.� To reiterate, upon inquiry, Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, denied having received any amount from Atty. Amboy.� In not returning the money to Soliman after a demand therefor was made following her failure to procure the issuance of the certificates of title, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon demand.� It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
�A lawyer�s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client 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.� Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.� It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.�17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy is found GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Furthermore, she is ORDERED to return to Marilen G. Soliman the entire amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal interest thereon, reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.� The respondent is further DIRECTED to promptly submit to this Court written proof of her compliance within thirty (30) days from notice of this Resolution.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy�s personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., on Leave.
In her complaint, Soliman claimed that she engaged the services of Atty. Amboy on May 27, 2007 in connection with a partition case.� In accordance with the Retainer Agreement between the parties, Soliman agreed to pay Atty. Amboy P50,000.00 as acceptance fee.� Upon the latter�s engagement, Soliman paid her P25,000.00.� Later on, Atty. Amboy advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case since the other co-owners of the property were amenable to the partition thereof.� Instead, Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the said property from the co-owners to the individual owners; the P25,000.00 already paid to her was then treated as payment for her professional services.2chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In November 2008, Soliman gave Atty. Amboy P16,700.00 as payment for the transfer tax.� In the second quarter of 2009, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles to the property because of the failure of the other co-owners to submit certain documents. Atty. Amboy then told Soliman that someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the issuance of the titles for a fee of P80,000.00.� On June 17, 2009, Atty. Amboy told Soliman that her contact in the RD agreed to reduce the amount to P50,000.00.3chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Meanwhile, Soliman deposited the amount of P8,900.00 to Atty. Amboy�s bank account as payment for the real property tax for the year 2009.� Thereafter, Soliman deposited the amount of P50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy�s bank account as payment for the latter�s contact in the RD.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On October 16, 2009, Atty. Amboy informed Soliman that the certificates of title to the property were then only awaiting the signature of the authorized officer.� However, Atty. Amboy failed to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-owners to the subject property.5chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On January 6, 2010, Atty. Amboy�s secretary informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for an additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title.� Soliman then refused to further pay the amount being asked by Atty. Amboy�s secretary.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Thereafter, Soliman kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any update on the release of the said titles, but the latter was not responding to her queries. On July 7, 2010, Soliman and Atty. Amboy�s secretary went to the office of a certain Atty. Marasigan, Deputy RD of Manila.� Soliman asked Atty. Marasigan if he received the P50,000.00 as payment for the release of the said titles.� Atty. Marasigan denied having received any amount to facilitate the release of the titles and claimed that the reason why the same could not be processed was that Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Soliman further claimed that Atty. Amboy thereafter refused to release the pertinent documents she gave to her for the processing of the titles to the property or give back the P50,000.00 that was already paid to her.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
For her part, Atty. Amboy admitted that she had a retainer agreement with Soliman, but denied having received any amount from the latter pursuant to the said agreement.� She claimed that the retainer agreement was not implemented since the partition case was not instituted.� She claimed that she merely undertook to research, gather and collate all documents required in the partition and in the transfer of the titles from the co-owners to the individual owners.� She denied having failed to submit the relevant documents to the RD which caused the delay in the processing of the said titles.� She likewise denied having asked Soliman for P50,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said titles.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On May 29, 2012, after due proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a Report and Recommendation,10 which recommended the suspension of Atty. Amboy from the practice of law for six (6) months.� The Investigating Commissioner opined that Atty. Amboy violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to observe due diligence in dealing with Soliman.� It also opined that she failed to inform the latter of the status of the proceedings for the issuance of the said titles.
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution,11 which adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, albeit with the modification that the period of Atty.� Amboy�s� suspension� from� the� practice� of� law� was� increased� from six (6) months to two (2) years and that she was ordered to return the entire amount she received from Soliman.
Atty. Amboy sought a reconsideration12 of the Resolution dated March 20, 2013, but it was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution13 dated March 21, 2014.
After a thorough perusal of the respective allegations of the parties and the circumstances of this case, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors.
The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.14� A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client�s request for information.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property.� It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title.
To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount of P50,000.00 to be paid to her �contact� inside the office of the RD in order to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title.� Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title.� Instead of procuring the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked for an additional P10,000.00 from Soliman.
Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client.� Atty. Amboy�s acts undermined the legal processes, which she swore to uphold and defend.� In swearing to the oath, Atty. Amboy bound herself to respect the law and legal processes.
The Court further finds improper the refusal of Atty. Amboy to return the amount of P50,000.00 which she paid in order to facilitate the release of the certificates of title.� To reiterate, upon inquiry, Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, denied having received any amount from Atty. Amboy.� In not returning the money to Soliman after a demand therefor was made following her failure to procure the issuance of the certificates of title, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon demand.� It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
�A lawyer�s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client 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.� Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.� It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.�17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy is found GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon receipt of this Resolution. Furthermore, she is ORDERED to return to Marilen G. Soliman the entire amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal interest thereon, reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.� The respondent is further DIRECTED to promptly submit to this Court written proof of her compliance within thirty (30) days from notice of this Resolution.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy�s personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and to the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., on Leave.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-10.
2 Id. at 2.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 5-9.
8 Id. at 9-10.
9 Id. at 106-114.
10 Id. at 135-145.
11 Id. at 134.
12 Id. at 146-153.
13 Id. at 175.
14 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17.
15 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04.
16 See Sencio v. Atty. Calvadores, 443 Phil. 490, 494 (2003).
17Adrimisin v. Atty. Javier, 532 Phil. 639, 645-646 (2006).
