SOPHIA ALAWI vs.ASHARY M.

ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a sales representative (or coordinator) of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co.,
Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of
the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends.
It appears that through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of
the housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm; and in connection therewith, a housing loan was also
granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
On December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of
his contract with the company on the grounds that her consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit,
fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales agent which made said contract void ab initio.
Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the Vice-President of Villarosa & Co. at San Pedro, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City.
The envelope containing it, and which actually went through the post, bore no stamps. Instead at the right hand
corner above the description of the addressee, the words, "Free Postage - PD 26," had been typed.
On the same date, Alauya also wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President, Credit & Collection Group of the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) arepudiating as fraudulent and void his contract with
Villarosa & Co.; and asking for cancellation of his housing loan in connection therewith, which was payable from
salary deductions at the rate of P4,338.00 a month.
On learning of Alauya's letter to Villarosa & Co. of December 15, 1995, Sophia Alawi filed with the Supreme Court a
verified complaint to which she appended a copy of the letter, and of the above mentioned envelope bearing the
typewritten words, "Free Postage - PD 26." In that complaint, she accused Alauya of:
1. "Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance
and evident bad faith;"
2. "Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation;"
3. "Unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage . . .;" and
4. Usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may properly
use.
Ruling:
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) inter alia enunciates the
State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. 16 Section 4 of the
Code commands that "(p)ublic officials and employees . . at all times respect the rights of others, and . . refrain from doing
acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest." 17More than
once has this Court emphasized that "the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in
the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum
so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary." 18
It does not appear to the Court consistent with good morals, good customs or public policy, or respect for the rights
of others, to couch denunciations of acts believed however sincerely to be deceitful, fraudulent or malicious, in
excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a right of action
against Sophia Alawi. The law requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without malice or vindictiveness, or
undue harm to anyone; in a manner consistent with good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, supra; or
otherwise stated, that he "act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." Righteous
indignation, or vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative language, or downright name-calling. As a member
of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent than for most other
government workers. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing,
or otherwise improper. As a judicial employee, it is expected that he accord respect for the person and the rights of others
at all times, and that his every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical
deviation from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by his strongly held conviction
that he had been grievously wronged.
As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who
pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a
courts. 21 While one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may

both be considered "counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is
an "attorney." The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law
and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessively intemperate,
insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorney; and
he is warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL
G. KHO, CLERK OF COURT IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR .

A.M. No. P-06-2177

June 27, 2006
(Formerly A.M. No. 06-4-268-RTC)
Facts:
This administrative case is a result of the audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the
books of accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern
Samar. The audit covered the period March 1985 to October 31, 2005.
The OCA, in its memorandum dated April 18, 2006, had the following findings: (1) there was a shortage ofP545.00
in remittances to the General Fund; (2) a cash shortage of P24.00 in the Sheriffs General Fund; and (3) Atty. Kho
did not deposit on time in the authorized depository bank the collections for the Fiduciary Fund (P60, 000) and
Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (P5,000). It also noted that Atty. Kho had already restituted the P545.00
and P24.00 cash shortages.
On January 26, 2006, the OCA received a letter-complaint with the information that Kho, along with his alleged
common-law-wife, stenographer Riza Amor L. Libanan, was engaged in lending out to court employees money in
his possession as clerk of court, personally deriving profit from the interest earned.
The OCA found Kho liable for violating OCA Circular No. 8A-93 when he kept the funds in a safety vault for more
than a year. All clerks of lower courts are supposed to deposit all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits and
other fiduciary collections with the Land Bank upon receipt thereof. Thus, it recommended that (1) the audit report
be docketed as a regular administrative complaint against Kho and (2) a fine in the amount of P10,000 be imposed
on him.
Issue: WON failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes gross dishonesty / gross misconduct.
Ruling:
Public office is a public trust. Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the
lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.5 Not only must their conduct at all
times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion.
A clerk of court, aside from being the custodian of the courts funds, revenues, property and premises, is also
entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary
funds. Safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of justice and no protestation of
good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government
funds. Clerks of court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by
them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.
Kho failed to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with him. This was inexcusable because he could have
purchased postal money orders from the local post office payable to the chief accountant, Accounting Division,
FMO-OCA. The money could have earned interest had he not kept them in the vault for over a year. As found by the
OCA, although Kho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, he was nevertheless liable for failing to immediately
deposit the collections for the judiciary funds.
The failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. It diminishes
the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme
penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time. However, Kho showed remorse by
immediately restituting the cash shortages and complying with the directives of the audit team. And considering that
this is his first offense, we find that the penalty of P10, 000 fine is sufficient.

ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA vs. ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR.,
A.C. No. 4904

August 12, 2004

Facts:
Respondent was, for years, Ana Alvaran Chua and her now deceased husband Chua Yap Ans legal counsel and
adviser upon whom they reposed trust and confidence. They were lessees of a building situated at Burgos Street,
Cabanatuan City (Burgos property) owned by respondents family, and another property containing an area of 854
sq. m., situated at Melencio Street, Cabanatuan City (Melencio property), also owned by respondents family
whereon they (spouses Chua) constructed their house. These two properties were mortgaged by the registered
owner, respondents mother Felicisima Melencio vda. de Mesina (Mrs. Mesina), in favor of the Planters
Development Bank to secure a loan she obtained.
As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, respondent convinced complainant Ana Chua and her
husband to help Mrs. Mesina by way of settling her obligation in consideration for which the Melencio property
would be sold to them at P850.00/sq. m. Accommodating respondents request, the spouses Chua and their
business partner, herein co-complainant Marcelina Hsia, settled Mrs. Mesinas bank obligation in the amount
of P983,125.40.
A Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985 conveying the Melencio property was thereafter executed by Mrs.
Mesina in favor of complainants. Respondent suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be
executed, antedated to 1979 before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment of capital gains tax.
One Juanito Tecson (Tecson), a co-lessee filed an Affidavit 5 dated February 20, 1986 before the Cabanatuan City
Prosecutors Office charging respondents mother, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the
said Deed of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code
Respondent proposed to complainants that they would simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein
complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina, which the complainants heeded to.
Some years later, respondent approached complainants and told them that he would borrow the owners copy of
Mrs. Mesinas title with the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of sale over
the Melencio property in complainants favor. However, despite respondents repeated promises "to effect" the
transfer of title in complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that the Melencio
property was being offered for sale to the public.
In her March 3, 2003 Report and Recommendation, 30 Investigation Commissioner Maala observed respondent Atty.
Simeon M. Mesina has committed gross misconduct which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his license and law confer upon him, and recommended that respondent be suspended for a period
of One (1) Year.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court finds that respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of
capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government
is aggravating.
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute
Sale wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.
Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owners copy of his mothers title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale
executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.
That the signature of "Felicisima M. Melencio" in the 1985 document 35 and that in the 1979 document 36 are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.
A propos is this Courts following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez37
As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required
to exercise in his dealings with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings
where the parties trade at "arms length." Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to

assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by
virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his
client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorneys
favor.
In fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more specifically, the following canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS
AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
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.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.

KELD STEMMERIK, represented by ATTYS. HERMINIO A. LIWANAG and WINSTON P.L. ESGUERRA vs.
ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS

A.C. No. 8010

June 16, 2009

Facts:
Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark who expressed his interest in acquiring real
property in the Philippines. He consulted respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real
property in the Philippines.
Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic,
Zambales with the assurance that the property was alienable the property through respondent as his representative
or attorney-in-fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary
documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received a P400,000 fee.
Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by respondent,
and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property. Subsequently, respondent prepared and
notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8
million. Respondent also drafted and notarized an agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was
complainant who provided the funds for the purchase of the property. Complainant then gave respondent the full
amount of the purchase price (P3.8 million) for which respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt.
After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in touch with respondent to
inquire about when the property could be registered in his name but the respondent suddenly became scarce and
refused to answer complainants calls and e-mail messages.
When complainant visited the Philippines he was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under Philippine
laws and the property sought to bought is inalienable
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the
IBP. He deplored respondents acts of serious misconduct for gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally
acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainants P3.8 million.
Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his last known address. Neither
did he appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. In this connection, the CBD found that respondent
abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City after his transaction with complainant and that he did not see it fit to
contest the charges against him. The CBD recommended the disbarment of respondent.
Issue: 1. WON the Notice of The Disbarment Proceedings to the respondent is sufficient.
2. WON the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and should be disbarred.
Ruling:
1. Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can neither defeat this Courts
jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his
whereabouts. Service of the complaint and other orders and processes on respondents office was sufficient notice
to him. Since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice requirement cannot apply to
him and he is thus considered to have waived it.
In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National Office or their
respective chapters of any change in office or residential address and other contact details. In case such change is
not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National
Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him.
2. Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the law and uphold the integrity
of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and
not as an instrument of oppression or deception.
Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession.
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. That oath is neither
mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.
Lawyers are servants of the law and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws, they should also
inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation.

By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by
assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client and
showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the
property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and
knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.
For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
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.
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to further his selfish
ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law and to the legal system.
He does not only tarnish the image of the bar and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also
betrays everything that the legal profession stands for.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED.

JON DE YSASI III vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION), CEBU CITY, and
JON DE YSASI
G.R. No. 104599 March 11, 1994
Facts:
Jon Ysasi III was employed as the farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental owned
Jon Ysasi II, the private respondent and the petitioners father, sometime in April, 1980. The petitioners employment
was on a fixed salary, with other allowances covering subsistence, medical and dental expenses.
Unfortunately, the petitioner was seriously afflicted with various ailments on two separate occasions in June and
August, 1982. Again, he was hospitalized from December, 1983 to January, 1984. The private respondent took care
of the medical bills and the petitioner continued to receive his compensation during the entire time of illnesses.
In April, 1984, the petitioner stopped receiving his salary and other benefits without due notice from his employer.
Petitioner made oral and written demands to the legal counsel and auditor of his employer but they were not acted
upon.
The petitioner filed an action against his employer with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for
illegally discharging him from his job with prayer for reinstatement and payment of back wages and damages but the
latter has dismissed the case on the grounds that the petitioner has abandoned his job and that his termination has
a valid cause.
The petitioner also charges NLRC for grave abuse of discretion in relying upon the findings of the executive labor
arbiter who decided on the case without the conduct of hearing.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and payment of damages, back
wages and other benefits
2. Whether or not the counsels failed to encourage their clients to avoid, or settle controversies if will admit for a fair
settlement, specially in this case which involves a father and his son
Ruling:
The Court held that the decision of NLRC be set aside. Private respondent is found guilty of illegal dismissal and is
likewise ordered to pay back wages for a period not exceeding three (3) years without deduction and in lieu of
reinstatement, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month for every year of service, a fraction of six (6) months
being considered as one (1) whole year.
The Court has resolved that the petitioner has a valid excuse for his absence and was illegally dismissed without
due process.
Meanwhile, the Court was disappointed with the conduct of both counsels. They are reminded of their ethical duty
as lawyers to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth legal conflicts in out of court settlements, especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients.

ROSAURA P. CORDON vs. JESUS BALICANTA

A.C. No. 2797

October 4, 2002

Facts:
Complainant Rosauro Cordon, the widow of Felixberto Jaldon, inherited properties which amounted to 21 parcels of
land. The lawyer who helped her settle the estate of her late husband was respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta.
Respondent enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that would develop the said real
properties into a high-scale commercial complex with a beautiful penthouse for complainant, which led to the
establishment of Rosaura Enterprises. Balicanta was simultaneously the President/General Manager/Treasurer. He
made them sign a document which turned out to be a voting trust agreement plus an SPA to sell and mortgage
some of the parcels of land which he transferred the titles of to a certain Tion Suy Ong. Respondent never
accounted for the proceeds of said transfers. Using a spurious board resolution, he obtained a loan from Land bank
in the amount of 2.22M php secured by 9 of the parcels of land. The respondent ostensibly intended to use the
money to construct the Baliwasan Commercial Center (BCC, for brevity). Complainant later on found out that the
structure was made of poor materials such as sawali, coco lumber and bamboo which could not have cost the
corporation anything close to the amount of the loan secured. He failed to pay a single installment on the loan and
therefore LBP foreclosed. He did not attempt to redeem, and sold the rights to redeem said property.
Complainants daughter discovered that their ancestral home had been demolished and that her mother was
detained in a small nipa hut. With the help of an attorney Lim she found her mother. They terminated respondents
services and threatened him with legal action.
Issue: Whether respondent should be disbarred
Held:
Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on the legal profession. His
misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit
properties left to him in trust by complainant and her daughter.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society, the obligation to obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to
abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to
maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the
absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the
resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his care;
he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his clients property, reputation, his life, his all.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession. He is bound to account for all money or property collected or received for or
from the client. The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are
bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct.