Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
LOTHAR
SCHULZ,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
4219
December 8, 2003
- versus -
ATTY.
MARCELO G.
FLORES,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Only recently, We
stressed that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions.
A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and
required
of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral
or deceitful conduct." The nature of the office of a lawyer requires
that
he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a
condition
precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued
possession
is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[1]Furthermore, implicit in a
vocation
characterized by professionalism is a certain level of competence and
dedication.[2]
Far from measuring up to the norms of conduct set in the Code, the
respondent
charged in this case, in fact, breached his avowed duty as a lawyer and
the ethical standards he was strictly bound to observe.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 22, 1994,
Lothar Schulz, a German national filed a verified complaint for
disbarment
against Atty. Marcelo G. Flores of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental.[3]
He alleged that sometime in December 1992, he engaged the services of
respondent
for the purposes of filing a complaint against Wilson Ong for
revocation
of contract and damages for the latter's failure to deliver the jeep he
sold to complainant within the stipulated period. Respondent advised
him
that there was no need to refer the complaint for barangay
conciliation.
Three months later, respondent instructed him to file his complaint
with
the Lupon Tagapayapa of Tabuc-tubig, Dumaguete City. Wilson Ong refused
to appear at the conciliation hearings, arguing that the Lupon of
Tabuc-tubig
had no jurisdiction over his person because he was a resident of
Barangay
Banilad. Complainant thus brought the complaint before the Barangay
Captain
of Banilad. By that time, however, complainant learned that Wilson Ong
had already filed a case for Specific Performance against him before
the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 31, entitled "Rachel
Lisa
B. Ong, et al. v. Lothar Schulz, " docketed as Civil Case No. 10527.
Complainant
argued that respondent's inordinate delay in acting on his case
resulted
in his being defendant rather than a complainant against Wilson Ong.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant also charged
respondent with collecting excessive and unreasonable fees and of
unjustifiably
refusing to return his files. He undertook to pay respondent attorney's
fees of P5,000.00 if the case does not reach the court, and P10,000.00
attorney's fees and P500.00 appearance fees if it reaches the court.
This
notwithstanding, respondent alleged in the Answer with Counterclaim
which
he prepared on behalf of complainant in Civil Case No. 10527 that his
attorney's
fees was P50,000.00 and appearance fee was P1,000.00 per hearing. When
complainant questioned him about this, respondent explained that it was
Wilson Ong who will be made to pay for the said fees. This, complainant
claimed, showed respondent's deceit and lack of candor in his dealings
with the parties in court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, complainant
alleged that since he suspected respondent of not protecting his
interest
in Civil Case No. 10527, he instructed respondent to withdraw his
appearance
as his counsel after the filing of the answer. Thereafter, he asked
respondent
to return the amount of P12,000.00 out of the total of P17,000.00 that
he has paid to the latter, inasmuch as the amount of P5,000.00 should
be
sufficient compensation for the minimal services rendered by him.
Respondent,
however, refused to return the amount to complainant and, instead,
demanded
additional fees. Complainant's new counsel wrote a formal demand letter
to respondent which, however, was ignored. This prompted complainant to
file a complaint with the Lupon Tagapayapa of Barangay Bantayan where
respondent
resided. After the parties failed to reach a settlement, complainant
instituted
an action for sum of money against respondent, docketed as Civil Case
No.
10645.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant alleged
that respondent offered to return his files provided that he signs a
statement
acknowledging that respondent does not owe him anything. Complainant
refused,
for fear that it would prejudice the collection suit he filed against
respondent.
Thus, respondent continued to unreasonably retain his files.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of his
charges
against respondent, complainant pointed out that respondent was
formerly
a Municipal Judge of Siaton, Negros Oriental who was dismissed from the
service after the end of the Marcos regime. He submitted a copy of an
Order[4]
of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 34, in Civil
Case
No. 9142 entitled "Bishop of Dumaguete v. Fausta Pajunar, et al. " In
that
case, respondent sought the inhibition of the Presiding Judge, Rosendo
Bandal, Jr. The latter inhibited himself but cited in the said Order
nine
instances of anomalous, illegal and unethical practices committed by
respondent.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment,[5]
respondent alleged that upon accepting the case of complainant, he
immediately
sent a letter to Wilson Ong demanding that he deliver the jeep to
complainant
for road test.[6]
Ong complied with the demand and allowed complainant to road-test the
vehicle,
during which he discovered that the jeep was defective.[7]
Respondent thereafter requested Ong to cause the repairs on the jeep.
It
was only after the negotiations with Ong failed that he advised
complainant
to proceed with the filing of his complaint before the Barangay Captain
of Tabuc-tubig. At the time, he believed Tabuc-tubig was the proper
venue
considering that the South Pacific Metal Works owned by Wilson Ong was
located there.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent claims that
complainant was to blame for the fact that Wilson Ong filed his
complaint
in court first. He alleged that complainant failed to follow up his
case
because he was involved in a traffic accident. Complainant's inability
to attend to his complaint with the Barangay Lupon in Tabuc-tubig
caused
the delay thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the attorney's
fees, respondent alleges that complainant agreed to pay him P50,000 as
attorney's fees, one-half of which is payable upon the filing of the
Answer
with Counterclaim[8]
in Civil Case No. 10527 less the amount of P17,000.00 given as payment
for past services. Complainant also agreed to pay him P1,000.00 per
appearance.
Hence, respondent avers that complainant still owed him P8,000.00 to
complete
the required one-half of the P50,000.00 attorney's fees, and P1,000.00
appearance fee for the hearing on April 15, 1993. Respondent further
explained
that he was willing to return complainant's files provided that he sign
a receipt acknowledging the turn-over, but complainant refused to sign.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent admitted
that he was once a Municipal Judge of Siaton, Negros Oriental but he
decided
to go on optional retirement. During his 17-year stint in the
judiciary,
he was held in high esteem by his colleagues and was elected President
of the Municipal Judges League of Negros Oriental for 14 consecutive
terms.
Out of the 15 RTC Judges in Negros Oriental, it is only Judge Bandal
who
had shown animosity, hostility and hatred towards him. However, he
added
that he and Judge Bandal have reconciled and are now on good terms.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 29, 1994,
the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation.[9]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 9, 2002,
respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion alleging that complainant
had
long left the country, for which reason the case may be resolved on the
basis of the pleadings.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline submitted a Report dated June 28, 2003 recommending
that:
(1) respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months
with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a
more
severe penalty; (2) he be ordered to return to complainant the amount
of
Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) with legal interest; and (3) he
return
the papers of complainant which came under his custody during the
period
of his engagement as counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In justifying the recommended
penalty, the IBP-CBD made the following observations:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent was presumed
to be knowledgeable on the laws, but in this case, it turned out that
Atty.
Flores knew too little of the provisions and application of PD No. 1508
which mandates that all disputes, except those specifically cited (the
dispute between Lothar Schulz and Wilson Ong not included), between and
among residents of the same city or municipality should be brought
first
under the system of barangay conciliation before recourse to the court
can be allowed.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He was not all certain
if the complaint of Lothar Schulz falls under PD No. 1508 or not. As
Lothar
Schulz narrated, Atty. Flores told him at first that there was no need
for his complaint to be coursed through the barangay authorities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not realizing the need
and urgency to avail of PD No. 1508, Atty. Flores found it more
important
to spend more than two months to dialogue and confer with Wilson and
hope
that he could get the parties to come to an amicable settlement of
their
differences, an undertaking that only involves a waste of time and
effort
as he later realized it because it turned out that Wilson Ong did not
appear
to have any genuine intent to make good his obligation to put the jeep
in good running condition and fee from defects because Lothar Schulz
and
his mechanics found out from the result of the last road test on the
jeep
that aside from several defects discovered during previous road tests
and
which had remained uncorrected/unrepaired, there are twenty-six more
new
defects.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It was already March
8, 1992, more than two months after becoming Lothar Schulz's lawyer
that
Atty. Flores reversed position and suddenly prepared a written
complaint
for the client which he asked the latter to file with the Barangay
Captain
of Tabuc-tubig. However, that belated move did not benefit the cause of
his client at all. On the contrary, Atty. Flores even made the problem
of delay worse. Upon the misconception that the proper venue was
Tabuc-tubig
which was the place where the assembly/motor shop of Wilson Ong is
located,
he directed Lothar Schulz to file his complaint there. That was a wrong
advice. Section 3 of PD No. 1508 states that the dispute should be
lodged
for conciliation with the barangay where the respondent actually
resides.
Because PD No. 1508 applies only to parties who are natural persons,
the
location of the assembly should of Wilson Ong is of no consequence to
the
law. The respondent who could be made a party under PD No. 1508 in this
case is Wilson Ong and the complaint against him must be filed where he
resides which is Barangay Banilad in Dumaguete City. Thus, the
complaint
of Lothar Schulz was not able to move at all for the entire duration
that
it was in Barangay Tabuc-tubig which had no authority over it. Such was
the situation until that barangay was impelled to dismiss the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction. It is true that the complaint was eventually
brought to the proper barangay (Banilad), but the Lupon in that place
was
no longer in a position to assert its jurisdiction because at that time
there was already a case that Wilson Ong had succeeded to file against
Lothar Schulz on the subject of their failed contract.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Between the conflicting
versions given by the parties as to the reason why the papers of Lothar
Schulz had continued to be possessed by Atty. Flores, the version of
the
complainant appears more deserving of credence. If the paper which was
presented for the signature of Lothar Schulz is really an
acknowledgment
to evidence the return of the papers of the case to Lothar Schulz, as
the
respondent would have it appear, there is no reason why Lothar Schulz
[should]
hesitate or refuse to sign the paper[s] as there is nothing prejudicial
to his interest. But certainly if the contents of the paper presented
by
Atty. Flores to Lothar Schulz for the purpose of signature involve[s]
an
admission on the part of Lothar Schulz that the lawyer is clear on the
matter of money accountability, it is understandable that Lothar Schulz
will not sign that paper because his signature will have the effect of
a desistance in his pending civil case for the recovery of the
P12,000.00
which he alleged to be an overcharge on attorney's fee[s] by Atty.
Flores.
The continuing possession by Atty. Flores of the papers of Lothar
Schulz
can only be compatible with the version that Lothar Schulz presented.
Atty.
Flores would not release the papers for they serve as means to harass
and/or
pressure Lothar Schulz until the latter is impelled to agree to give up
his efforts to pursue Civil Case No. 10645 which will provide Atty.
Flores
the assurance that a day may come when he will be made to reimburse the
amount of P12,000.00 previously collected from the former client.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The findings and
recommendation
of the IBP-CBD were thereafter approved and adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors in Resolution No. XVI-2003-109 dated August 30, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the
findings
and conclusions of the Committee on Bar Discipline, as approved by the
IBP Board of Governors. The breach of respondent's sworn duty as a
lawyer
and of the ethical standards he was strictly to honor and observe has
been
sufficiently established.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent has fallen
short of the competence and diligence required of every member of the
Bar.
The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility state:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CANON 18. — A
LAWYER
SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCEchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Rule 18.03 — A
lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is dismaying to note
that respondent patently violated his duty as a lawyer in this case. He
committed a serious transgression when he failed to exert his utmost
learning
and ability to give entire devotion to his client's cause. His client
had
relied upon him to file the complaint with dispatch so that he would
not
be preempted by the adverse party. But he failed him. As a consequence
of respondent's indolence, his client was haled to court as a
party-defendant.
It therefore behooves this Court to wield its corrective hand on this
inexcusable
infraction which caused undeserved and needless prejudice to his
client's
interest, adversely affected the confidence of the community in the
legal
profession and eroded the public's trust in the judicial system. As an
attorney, respondent is sworn to do his level best and to observe full
fidelity to the court and his clients.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has time and
again emphatically stated that the trust and confidence necessarily
reposed
by clients requires in the lawyer a high standard and an appreciation
of
his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public.[13]
Every case an attorney accepts deserves his full attention, diligence,
skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts
it for a fee or for free.[14]
To be sure, any member of the legal fraternity worth his title cannot
afford
to practice the profession in a lackadaisical manner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, respondent
erred in not returning complainant's money despite demands after his
failure
to file the case and his devious act of compelling complainant to sign
a document stating that he has no financial obligation to complainant
in
exchange of the return of complainant's papers. This conduct violated
the
following Canon:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CANON 15. —
A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 16. 03. — A
lawyer
shall deliver the funds and property of client when due or upon demand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Where a client gives
money
to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal
an adverse judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price
of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step
and spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client.[15]
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money
in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the
obligation
to make a prompt accounting.[16]
Neither is a lawyer entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's
money
for himself by the mere fact alone that the client owes him attorney's
fees.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of an attorney
to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the presumption
that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and
violation
of the trust reposed in him by the client.[18]
It is not only a gross violation of the general morality as well as of
professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence in the legal
profession
and deserves punishment.[19]
In short, it is settled that the unjustified withholding of money
belonging
to his client, as in this case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A lawyer must conduct
himself, especially in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in
a manner that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
should
be characterized by the highest degree of good faith and fairness.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Therefore, we agree
with the evaluation of the IBP-CBD and find that respondent's acts
warrant
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him. The recommended
penalty
of six months suspension from the practice of law is well-taken.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent Atty. MARCELO G. FLORES is found guilty
of
negligence and incompetence, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months effective immediately. He is ordered to
RETURN to complainant Lothar Schulz the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) with legal interest from the date of promulgation of this
Resolution, and all papers which came into his custody as a result of
having
served as counsel for said complainant. Respondent is further STERNLY
WARNED
that a commission of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt
with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let copies of this Resolution
be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP, as well
as
on the Court Administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for
their
information and guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Eustaquio v. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, 24 March 2003, citing Cakub v.
Suller,
A.C. No. 1474, 28 January 2000, 323 SCRA 556, 560; Tapucar v. Tapucar,
355 Phil. 66, 74 [1998]; Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7, 15 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Jardin v. Villar, A.C. No. 5474, 28 August 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., pp. 26–31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 38–45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Annex 1-T, Comment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 62; Annex 1-U, Comment.
[8]
Id., pp. 55–61.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, Vol. III, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Report of Investigation and Recommendation, pp. 10–12, 15–16.
[12]
Jardin v. Villar, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 412 Phil. 419 [2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
In re: Atty. David Briones, 415 Phil. 203 [2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Agpalo, R.E. Legal Ethics, 1997 ed., p. 189.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
In re: Bamberger, 49 Phil. 962 [1942]; Daroy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304
[1975];
Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131 [1971]; Tambueko v. De Dumo, 172 SCRA
760
[1989].
[17]
Cabigao v. Rodrigo, 567 Phil. 20 [1932]; Manaloto v. Reyes, 113 Phil.
915
[1965].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
In re: David, 84 Phil. 627 [1949]; Manaloto v. Reyes, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Daroy v. Legaspi, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Sencio v. Atty. Robert Calvadores, A.C. No. 5841, 20 January 2003,
citing
Reyes v. Maglaya, 243 SCRA 214, 219 [1995].
[21]
Genato v. Atty. Essex L. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078, 14 July 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |