SECOND DIVISION
RUBY
MAE
BARNACHEA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
5925
March 11, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
EDWIN T.
QUIOCHO,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO, SR.,
J.:
On January 3, 2002, Ruby
Mae Barnachea filed a verified complaint for breach of lawyer-client
relations
against respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho.
It appears that respondent
had not been in the private practice of the law for quite some
time.
However, in September 2001, he decided to revive his legal practice
with
some associates. Complainant engaged the legal services of
respondent
for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the title over a
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 334411 previously
owned by her sister, Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. The latter sold said
property
to complainant under an unnotarized deed of absolute sale.
Complainant
drew and issued BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052304 in the amount of
P11,280.00
and BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052305 in the amount of P30,000.00, both
dated September 5, 2001, or the total amount of P41,280.00 for the
expenses
for said transfer and in payment for respondent's legal services.
Respondent enchased the checks.cralaw:red
However, despite the
lapse of almost two months, respondent failed to secure title over the
property in favor of complainant. The latter demanded that
respondent
refund to her the amount of P41,280.00 and return the documents which
she
earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent failed to comply
with
said demands. On November 1, 2001, complainant received a letter
from respondent informing her that he had failed to cause the transfer
of the property under her name and that he was returning the documents
and title she had entrusted to him and refunding to her the amount of
P41,280.00
through his personal check No. DIL 0317787. Said check was drawn
against his account with the Bank of Commerce (Diliman Branch) in the
amount
of P41,280.00 and was postdated December 1, 2001. Respondent told
complainant that he needed more time to fund the check. However,
respondent failed to fund the check despite the demands of complainant.cralaw:red
In his Answer to the
complaint, respondent denied that complainant contracted his legal
services.
Although respondent admitted having received the two checks from
complainant,
he claimed that said checks were intended to cover actual and
incidental
expenses for transportation, communication, representation, necessary
services,
taxes and fees for the cancellation and transfer of TCT No. 334411
under
the name of complainant and not for legal services. He asserted
that
he acted in good faith as shown by the fact of his return of
complainant's
documents with an explanatory letter and his issuance of a personal
check
for P41,280.00 dated December 1, 2001. He insisted that he would
not compromise for such meager amount his personal standing as well as
his membership in the legal profession. His failure to transfer
the
title of the property under the name of the complainant was caused by
his
difficulty in making good the claimed amount, compounded by his
affliction
with diabetes and the consequent loss of sight of his right eye.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent further alleged
that he was a licensed real estate and insurance broker and had been a
freelance business management consultant. At the same time he engaged
in
real estate brokering, pre-need products marketing for Prudential Life,
and life insurance underwriting for Insular Life. In 1999, he
gave
up the practice of his profession as a lawyer and subsequently managed
to put up a business center with fellow insurance underwriters for
their
common insurance underwriting practice. He further claimed that
sometime
in August, 2001, an insurance client introduced complainant as an
insurance
prospect to him. In the course of their dealing, complainant
intimated
to respondent her willingness to consider respondent's insurance
proposal
provided the latter would help her facilitate the cancellation and
eventual
transfer to her name the property covered by TCT No. 334411 in the name
of complainant's sister, Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. Respondent
agreed
to help complainant in the transfer of the title to her name, with the
condition that no diligent study or verification of complainant's
documents,
nor preparation of any additional document or any application or
petition
whatsoever, will be made by respondent. He explained to
complainant
that his task was merely to go through the regular process of
presenting
the available documents, paying the taxes and fees, and following up
the
processing for the cancellation and issuance of the certificate of
title.
In other words, respondent offered to complainant services which a
non-lawyer
familiar with the procedure and the related offices can perform and
provide
to the complainant with respect to the transfer of the title of the
property
in her name.cralaw:red
Respondent asserted
that in the latter part of September 2001, he discovered and became
aware
for the first time that the original copy of TCT No. 334411 with the
Register
of Deeds of Quezon City was destroyed in a fire in Quezon City Hall
several
years earlier and that complainant's copy of the title needed to be
reconstituted
before it can be cancelled and transferred. At about the same
time,
the working relations of respondent in the business center with his
non-lawyer
associates had become difficult and strained, impelling him to sever
his
business relations with them and cease from to going to the business
center.
Consequently, telephone communications between respondent and
complainant
at the business center was cut. Communications became much more
limited
when, apart from the fact that respondent did not have a landline at
his
residence, respondent's mobile phone was stolen sometime in October
2001.cralaw:red
The Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) designated Atty. Dennis B. Funa as Commissioner
to
conduct a formal investigation of the complaint. Despite several
settings, respondent failed to appear and adduce evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 26, 2002, Investigating
Commissioner Dennis B. Funa submitted his report and recommendation
stating
in part that:
1. Respondent
is not able to meet his financial obligations due to financial
difficulties,
and that respondent is in good faith in his failure to meet this
obligation.cralaw:red
2. It is recommended
that respondent be ORDERED TO REPAY HIS CLIENT within ninety (90) days
from receipt of this Decision. The principal amount being
P41,280.00.
Failure to comply with the Order shall be considered as proof of
evident
bad faith, and shall be considered in the continuing evaluation of the
case in view of the continued failure to repay his client.
3. Respondent
should also be given a WARNING that a repetition shall be dealt with
more
severely.[1]
The Investigating Commissioner
gave credence to the claim of complainant that she engaged the legal
services
of respondent and paid him for his services and that respondent failed
in his undertaking and refund the amount of P41,280.00 to complainant
despite
her demands and that respondent appeared to be evading the complainant.cralaw:red
On October 19, 2002,
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-2002-550 adopting
and
approving the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation with the
additional
sanction of reprimand for respondent:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules,
with modification. Respondent is hereby reprimanded and ordered to
return
the Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty (P41,280.00) Pesos to
complainant
within ninety (90) days from receipt of notice.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the Court agrees
with the Board of Governors that respondent should be meted a
disciplinary
sanction, it finds that the penalty of reprimand recommended by the
Board
of Governors is not commensurate to the gravity of the wrong committed
by respondent. As found by the Investigating Commissioner, the
complainant
engaged the legal services of the respondent. As admitted in his letter
to the complainant, respondent had just resumed his private practice of
law two months before complainant contracted his services for the
notarization
of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the registration thereof with the
Register
of Deeds and the transfer of the title over the property to the
complainant:
NOVEMBER 1, 2002
DEAR RUBY,
I AM SORRY I AM RETURNING
YOUR DOCUMENTS WITHOUT CHANGES.cralaw:red
I HAD A SERIES OF MONEY
PROBLEMS RIGHT AFTER YOU GAVE ME THE TWO CHECKS AND COMING WITH THE
AMOUNTS
WITH PERSONAL FUNDS.cralaw:red
I WAS REVIVING MY LEGAL
PRACTICE ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS WHICH WE MET AND HAD JUST SET UP THE
OFFICE
WITH TWO ASSOCIATES WHICH A FEW WEEKS LATER WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS AND
DECIDED
TO DISBAND. I WILL HAVE TO REFURBISH MY OFFICE. I AM
ISSUING
MY PERSONAL CHECK TO GUARANTEE THE AMOUNT I TOOK. I NEED A LITTLE
TIME TO COVER THE AMOUNT. THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
(Sgd.)
EDWIN.[3]
Respondent's claim that
complainant did not retain his legal services flies in the face of his
letter to complainant. Even if it were true that no
attorney-client
relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may
be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and
dishonesty
in the profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of
the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.[4]
In this case, respondent
failed to comply with his undertaking for almost two months. Worse,
despite
demands of complainant, he failed to refund the amount of P41,280.00
and
to return to complainant the deed of absolute sale and title over the
property.
Respondent's claim that complainant could not contact him because he
did
not have any landline at his residence and that his mobile phone was
stolen
in October 2001, is hard to believe. He failed to adduce a morsel
of evidence to prove that his telephone at the business center was cut
or that his mobile phone had been stolen. Even then, respondent
could
have easily contacted the complainant at her residence or could have
written
her a letter informing her that the original copy of TCT No. 324411 in
the custody of the Register of Deeds was burned when the Quezon City
Hall
was gutted by fire and that there was a need for the reconstitution of
said title. Neither did respondent adduce evidence that he was a
life insurance underwriter for Insular Life or that he had been sick
with
diabetes and had lost his sight in his right eye. Respondent
simply
refused to adduce evidence to prove his allegations in his Answer to
the
complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court is led to
believe that respondent's failure to cause the transfer of the title of
the property under the name of complainant was due to a financial
problem
that beset him shortly after he received the checks from
complainant.
It can easily be inferred from respondent's letter that he used
complainant's
money to alleviate if not solve his financial woes. What
compounded
respondent's unethical conduct was his drawing of a personal check and
delivering the same to complainant without sufficient funds in his bank
account to cover the check. Even as he promised to fund his
account
with the drawee bank, respondent failed to do so when the check became
due.cralaw:red
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.[5]
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.[6]
The conversion by a lawyer funds entrusted to him by his client is a
gross
violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in
the legal profession.[7]
In this case, respondent
intransigeantly refused to return to the complainant the amount of
P41,280.00
which he received for the expenses for the transfer to her of the title
of the property and for his professional fees. His dishonest
conduct
was compounded by his interjection of flimsy excuses for his obstinate
refusal to refund the amount to complainant.cralaw:red
The relation of attorney
and client is highly fiduciary in nature and is of a very delicate,
exacting
and confidential character.[8]
A lawyer is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his
dealings and transactions with his clients.[9]
The profession, therefore, demands of an attorney an absolute
abdication
of every personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or
indirectly,
with the interest of his client. In this case, respondent
miserably
failed to measure up to the exacting standard expected of him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, Respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho is found guilty of
violation
of Canons 15 and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) Year with a stern
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely. He is DIRECTED to restitute to the complainant the full
amount of P41,280.00 within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
Respondent
is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of said
amount
within ten (10) days from said payment. If Respondent fails to
restitute
the said amount within the aforesaid period, he shall be meted an
additional
suspension of three (3) months for every month or fraction thereof of
delay
until he shall have paid the said amount in full. In case a
subsidiary
penalty of suspension for his failure to restitute the said amount
shall
be necessary, respondent shall serve successively the penalty of his
one
year suspension and the subsidiary penalty. This is without
prejudice
to the right of the complainant to institute the appropriate action for
the collection of said amount.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 31.
[2]
Id. at 26.
[3]
Id., at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Constantino vs. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993).
[5]
Canon 16, CODE OF PROSEFFIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
[6]
In Re: David, 84 Phil. 627; Capulong vs. Alino, 22 SCRA 491 (1968).
[7]
Nabor vs. Beterina, 360 SCRA 6 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Canon 15, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILTY.
[9]
Id.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |