ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 4922. July 26, 2000]

ADORACION FARINAS-LOT vs. ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, SR.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 26 2000.

A.C. No. 4922 (Adoracion Farinas-Lot vs Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr.)

On July 2, 1998, complainant Wed with the Supreme Court a Letter-Complaint ¹ Rollo , p. 1.for disciplinary action against her lawyer, respondent herein, for alleged misrepresentation as to the filing fees and other amounts due in connection with two cases handled by respondent for complainant.

Concerning the first case, Civil Case No. 2444-97-C, ² Entitled "Adoracion Lot-Ardina v. Spouses Mamilcar Rasimo and Divina Rasimo, for Specific Performance with Preliminary Injunction filed with the RTC-Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34.complainant alleged that sometime in July of 1997, respondent requested from her the amount of P 112,000.00 to be paid as filing fees in the case. Respondent issued a receipt ³ Annex "A" to the Letter Complaint, Rollo, p.4.that he received the amount of P 112,000.00 from complainant. However, complainant later discovered that the actual filing fees amounted to only P965.00. Hence, she requested for the return of the difference of P111,035.00. Upon failure of respondent to return said amount, she instituted the present complaint.

In his Comment and/or Answer, ⁴ Rollo , pp. 17-20.respondent countered that the receipt for the filing fee was actually prepared by complainant who placed the higher amount for the purpose of claiming a tax deduction. Furthermore, he said that the P111,035.00 difference was actually part of the acceptance fee of respondent, which was at an agreed amount of P150,000.00.

Complainant claimed, however, that the amount of P112,000.00 could not have been part of the attorney's fees because she already gave respondent a second hand personal computer and a pair of Bally shoes as payment for his services in Civil Case No. 2444-97-C.

Respondent admitted receiving the second hand personal computer with printer but claimed that it was not in relation to Civil Case No. 2444-97-C, but in connection with the assistance extended by respondent to complainant in the canvassing of votes of the homeowner's association. Respondent categorically denied having received the pair of B ally shoes as part of his acceptance fee, and insisted that he does not receive payment in kind for his services.

The second case involved a civil case for annulment of marriage. ⁵ Filed before the RTC-Calaxnba, Laguna, Branch 31.Complainant claimed that respondent requested the amounts of P25,000.00 and P11,400.00 as payment of filing fees with the Office of the Solicitor General and for publication purposes respectively. However, complainant later discovered that no filing fees are required in the OSG, and that no publication was ever made. Hence, complainant likewise demanded the return of said amounts but respondent refused to do so.

Respondent denied requesting the amounts of P25,000.00 and P11,400.00 as filing fees with the OSG or for purposes of publication. He claimed that he only received the amount of P3 5,000.00 as attorney's fee in connection with the marriage annulment case.

In a Resolution dated November 9, 1998, ⁶ Rollo , p. 60.the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

On January 29, 2000, the Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner that:

(1) In the first case, the complaint having been substantiated, respondent should be ordered to refund to complainant the amount of P111,035.00, which is the difference between the amount received per receipt and the actual filing fees paid. In the event of respondent's refusal to do so, respondent should be reprimanded for his act of misrepresentation concerning said filing fees.

(2) In the second case, concerning monies given to respondent in connection with the marriage annulment case, complainant failed to substantiate her allegations that the same was given for filing fees with the OSG or for purposes of publication. Nor was it established that it was respondent who issued the receipt. The IBP found as acceptable the explanation of respondent that said amounts were paid as attorney's fees, hence the complaint in this regard was without basis.

We concur with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner as approved by IBP Board of Governors, with the modification that even after he refunds the difference of P111,035.00 he should still be subject of reprimand.

Worthy of note, respondent's issuance and use of a false receipt for the payment of filing fees clearly violates Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that "{a} lawyer shall not counsel nor abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Respondent is therefore exhorted to conduct himself beyond reproach at all times and to abide strictly with his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. In language too plain to be misunderstood, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Such conduct which could prejudice not only private persons but also the government tax collection effort ought not to be condoned nor abetted by a member of the bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby orders respondent to return the amount of P111,035.00 to complainant. Moreover, respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. is hereby REPRIMANDED with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense complained of will be dealt with more severely in the future.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE