SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

A.C. No. 503            October 29, 1965

MARIA CRISTINA MANALOTO, Petitioner, vs. SIXTO L. REYES, Respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

Sixto L. Reyes, a member of the Philippine Bar, was legal counsel for the Manaloto family in the following cases during the period from October 1960 to July 1961: Criminal Case No. 376, People v. Eliseo Rigor, in the Justice of the Peace Court of Victoria, Tarlac; Civil Case No. 3672, Belina Rigor, et al. v. Virginia P. Jimenez, in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac; Criminal Case No. 2508, People v. Virginia P. Jimenez, also in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac; and Civil Case No. 43248, Republic Savings Bank v. Belina Rigor, et al., in the Court of First Instance of Manila. He also undertook to help said family to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. For his services, the Manaloto family allegedly paid him not less than P1,000.00 exclusive of travelling expenses. He, however, admits having received only a total of P590.00 and two sacks of rice as his fees in the above cases.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Manaloto family consists of Belina Rigor, a widow, and her children, named Rosario, Adoracion, Jose and Maria Cristina, all surnamed Manaloto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On October 13, 1961, Maria Cristina Manaloto instituted disbarment proceedings against Sixto L. Reyes for abandonment of the above-mentioned cases and conversion of sums of money entrusted to him by the petitioner and her sister, Rosario. This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. After hearing the parties, disciplinary action was recommended by him against respondent. We now proceed to consider the charges.

"ABANDONMENT"chanrobles virtual law library

Criminal Case No. 376, People v. Eliseo Rigor, and Criminal Case No. 2508, People v. Virginia P. Jimenez, were set for hearing on July 18, 1961 before the Justice of the Peace of Victoria, Tarlac and the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac, respectively. In the evening of July 17, 1961 respondent Sixto L. Reyes informed petitioner herein that inasmuch as he was preoccupied with the election campaign of congressional candidate Rellosa in the province of Laguna, he would entrust to Atty. Jacinto de los Reyes the hearing of the said cases. This proposal of respondent did not meet with petitioner's approval. Forthwith, petitioner requested, by telegram and telephone, for the postponement of the scheduled hearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Subsequently, petitioner verbally advised respondent that she intended to replace him with another lawyer. This she did by retaining the services of Atty. Vicente Fernando as counsel in the aforesaid cases. Immediately thereafter, respondent delivered the papers pertaining to the cases to Atty. Fernando who requested for the same. Since then he no longer attended to the said cases. However, he omitted to withdraw his appearance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner charges respondent of abandonment for failure to observe the provisions of Section 24, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, in that he retired from the aforesaid cases without the prior written consent of his client filed in court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This charge preferred by petitioner cannot prosper. First of all, respondent did not retire from the cases. Petitioner dismissed respondent and substituted him with Atty. Vicente Fernando. Secondly, the act of respondent in proposing to petitioner that Atty. Jacinto de los Reyes conduct the hearing of the cases scheduled for July 18, 1961 did not amount to abandonment by respondent of said cases. On the contrary, it tended to show his interest in said cases, otherwise, he would not have proposed that another lawyer attend to the hearing of two cases in his absence. True, Atty. de los Reyes did not actually proceed to Victoria and Tarlac but it was because petitioner herself took steps to have the hearing postponed. Hence, there was actually no hearing to take care of.

"CONVERSION"chanrobles virtual law library

In Civil Case No. 43248, Republic Savings Bank v. Belina Rigor, et al., Belina Rigor's counsel was Atty. Manuel Domingo but when the former's property was about to be sold at public auction, her said counsel was in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. So, Belina Rigor sought the help of respondent for the purpose of stopping the Sheriff from selling the property. In the morning of January 31,1961 respondent asked and received from the Manaloto family the sum of P500.00 allegedly to be used in filing the proper action in court to stay the auction sale scheduled at ten o'clock in the same morning. Acting upon respondent's advice and assurance that the sale would be stopped, petitioner stayed at home on that day and did not anymore bother to check with the sheriff's office.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Later, petitioner was informed that, the assurances of respondent notwithstanding, the auction sale went on as scheduled and her mother's property was sold to the highest bidder. Upon inquiry with the clerk of court she further learned that respondent filed no motion with, and paid no money to, the court in order to stop or postpone the auction sale. The sum of P500.00 was never returned to her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On another occasion, petitioner solicited respondent's help in applying for an additional loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines. Later, she found out that respondent did not file the application for loan. Not only that, he did not pay the bank the amount of P30.00 which she gave him for filing fee. Said amount was likewise never returned to her by respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Respondent denies having received both sums of P500.00 and P30.00. Against this denial is the positive testimony of petitioner and her sister, Rosario. Although petitioner could not present any receipt signed by respondent therefor - for there was none - we have found her oral evidence sufficiently convincing. And, considering that respondent never returned to her the amounts involved, the presumption is that he appropriated the same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, his client.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, respondent Sixto L. Reyes, is found guilty of malpractice and hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. Respondent is hereby ordered to return to petitioner the sum of P530.00 within 30 days from receipt of this decision. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., and Dizon, JJ., took no part.