THE LAWYER AND THE MONEY OR PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS

#2 DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ, JR. vs. ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT

A.C. No. 7057 July 25, 2006

FACTS: Respondent acted as the counsel of Almendarez in an ejectment suit. The defendant in
the ejectment suit deposited rentals. A judgment by compromise has been rendered. Atty. Langit
filed for a Motion for Execution and Withdrawal of Deposited Rentals. A second motion for
withdrawal was filed by Atty. Langit. Almendarez learned from the Clerk of Court that Atty.
Langit received a total of P255,000, but was not informed of such transactions. Almendarez,
through a new counsel, sent a letter to Atty Langit for the return of the P255,000. No reply was
made, hence the complaint.

The IBP found Atty. Langit failed to account for the money of his client Almendarez,
recommended the penalty of suspension.

ISSUE: whether or not Atty Langit is guilty of gross misconduct.

RULING: Yes. The SC sustained the findings of the IBP.

“Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he received the sum of money
representing the monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such
sum to its rightful owner. Respondent received the money in his capacity as counsel for
complainant. Therefore, respondent held the money in trust for complainant.”

“A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere fact
that the client owes him attorney's fees. In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the
existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money.”

Atty. Langit violated Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent was suspended for two years from the practice of law.

ROQUE, JENINA
 THE LAWYER AND THE MONEY OR PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS

#3 ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA vs. ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR.

A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004

FACTS: Mesina was complainant Chua’s legal counsel for many years. Chua and her late
husband leased two properties of the Mesina family, the Burgos and Melencio properties. The two
properties were mortgaged by Mrs. Mesina (respondent’s mother) with the Planters Development
Bank. Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligations, respondent convinced the Chua’s to help his
mother and in return, they will sell the Melencio property. The spouses Chua agreed. When they
were appraised for capital gains tax, respondent suggested that they ante-date the deed of sale, the
date before the effectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.

Juanito Tecson, a business partner of the complainants, questioned the transaction. He then filed
charges against complaints and respondent for falsification. In order to avoid the charge of
falsification, respondent suggested that another deed of sale be executed, transferring the title of
the Melencio property back to Mrs. Mesina. The TCT were retained by the complainants. Tecson
then desisted.

Respondent borrowed the TCT, promising the complainants that he will process the transfer of the
property to their name. Respondent never returned the TCT. The complainants learned that the
Melencio property was being offered for sale.

The IBP found Mesina guilty for gross misconduct, recommended a penalty of suspension for 1
year.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

HELD: Yes. The SC 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.”

“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 he inveigled his own clients into turning over to him the owner’s copy of his mother’s
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.”

Respondent violated his oath, Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 15.07, and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent was disbarred.

ROQUE, JENINA
 THE LAWYER AND THE MONEY OR PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS

#4 VALERIANA U. DALISAY vs ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR.

A.C. No. 5655 (2006)

FACTS: Dalisay engaged the services of Mauricio as counsel in a civil case. Despite receipt of
attorney’s fees and documents, Mauricio did not render any legal services to Dalisay. Complainant
asked for the return of the attorney’s fees but the respondent refused.

The IBP ordered Mauricio to refund the money and recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
The SC rendered an earlier decision, found Mauricio guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct
and meted him with the penalty of suspension for 6 months. Hence, this motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct

RULING: Yes.
Once a lawyer “accepts money from a client, an attorney-client relationship is established, giving
rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. He must serve the client with competence and
diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted devotion.
“Respondent assumed such obligations when he received the amount of P56,000.00 from
complainant and agreed to handle” Dalisay’s case. “Unfortunately, he had been remiss in the
performance of his duties. As we have ruled earlier, there is nothing in the records to show that he
entered his appearance as counsel of record for complainant in Civil Case No. 00-044. Neither is
there any evidence nor pleading submitted to show that he initiated new petitions.”
“The ethics of the profession demands that, in such a case, he should immediately return the filing
fees to complainant. In Parias v. Paguinto, we held that a lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected from the client. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such
as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the
client on demand. Per records, complainant made repeated demands, but respondent is yet to
return the money.”
The MR is denied.

ROQUE, JENINA