l\epublic of tbe ~biltppines SUPREME COURT OF THE PHlt.

IPPINES
il>upreme QCourt PU8L ORMATION OFFICE

:.flanila
~ JUN 2 6 201s
1~D
THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated June 3, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 9616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821] (Dalmacio B.

Sugata-on, represented by Melchor Sugata-on v. Atty. Angeles R. Orquia,
Jr.). - For resolution is an Administrative Complaint1 filed on September 6,
2006 by complainant Dalmacio B. Sugata-on, represented by Melchor
Sugata-on, against Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr. for his suspension or
disbarment due to alleged gross professional misconduct in failing to
perform the legal services he was engaged to render despite repeated
demands and full payment of his attorney's fees and other expenses related
thereto.

The Report and Recommendation2 dated September 20, 2010 of

Commissioner Cecilio C. Villanueva, Commission of Bar Discipline ( CBD),
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), follows:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Angeles R.

Orquia, Jr. ("Respondent") by Dalmacio B. Sugata-on ("Complainant"),
represented by his Attorney-in-fact Melchor J. Sugata-on due to alleged
gross professional misconduct.

Sometime in May 2000, complainant allegedly engaged the

services of the respondent in San Jose, Antique to transfer to his name the
titles of six (6) lots he purchased from different persons in Antique. He
turned-over to the respondent's wife, Ms. Helen Orquia, the transfer
documents and the corresponding certificates of titles and paid the total
amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php
135,000.00). The sum was paid on installment as follows: the sum of Php
25,000.00 on 19 May 2000; the sum of Phpl00,000.00 on 22 May 2000;
and the sum of Php 10,000.00 on 21 July 2000. The payment was duly
receipted and signed by the wife of the respondent. The amount was

Rollo, pp. 1-3.

Id. at 119-129.

~
- over- (491) - II
 Resolution -2 - A. C. No. 9616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821".]
June 3, 2019
supposed to cover "x x x attorney's fees, processing and legal fees,
publication and other miscellaneous expenses, including BIR taxes for the
·transfer of all six (6) certificates of title xx x."
"· ..
...
,~

• ~· 1 '•

After six (6) years, the certificates of titles were not yet transferred
in the name of the complainant. Sometime in June 2006, complainant thru
~ :· ' ' his nephew Melchor Sugata-on demanded from respondent to return all the
documents as well as the money paid. Of the six (6) certificates of titles
only three (3) were returned, while the other documents of transfer and the
money paid were not.

Hence, complainant[,] through his counsel[,] wrote a demand letter

dated 18 July 2006 to the respondent demanding return of the documents
he endorsed as well as the money paid. In a reply letter dated 10 August
2006, respondent denied that the complainant engaged his services. He
explained that it was his wife and a certain Mrs. Sueza Cebuano Gerona
who undertook the responsibility for the transaction and not his law office.

Not satisfied with the explanation of the respondent, this instant

complaint was filed on 06 September 2006. In an Order dated 08 September
2006, the Commission on Bar Discipline required the respondent to file his
answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order.

On 11 September 2006, Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona deposited the

amount of Php50,000.00 to the account of complainant's counsel, Atty.
Alexander G. Gironella. She also deposited the amount of Php85,000.00 to
the same account as evidenced by deposit slips.

Respondent filed his answer on 11 October 2006. A notice of

mandatory conference dated 23 January 2007 directed the parties to appear
before the commission on 09 March 2007. During the mandatory
conference, the parties agreed on the following stipulations:

(1) That Mrs. Orquia signed the receipt for the amount for Atty.
Orquia;

(2) That the amount of Php 135,000.00 was returned to the

complainant;

(3) That the secretary of the respondent never received the

money/documents;

(4) That three titles were returned by Mrs. Orquia to a certain

Melchor Sugata-on, representative of the complainant;

The parties also defined the issue of the case, which is "whether or
not the respondent had violated his oath of office as lawyer and whether he
should be liable for disciplinary penalty or ordered to return the titles to the
complainant as well as pay the proper damages."

The parties were then ordered to submit their respective position

paper[s]. Respondent submitted his position paper on 24 April 2007 and a
supplemental position paper on 18 July 2007. The complainant, on the other
hand, submitted his position paper on 10 July 2007.

~
- over- (491) - II
•'

Resolution -3 - A. C. No. 9616

[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821 ]
June 3, 2019
II. COMPLAINANT'S CAUSES OF ACTION

The complainant mainly alleged that respondent was grossly

negligent because the latter delayed and failed to transfer the certificates of
titles to the name of complainant, after receiving full payment for the
services engaged. Hence, respondent has violated the lawyer's oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibilities, specifically:

"CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN

HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use

of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement of claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE

CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENTS.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN

TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money

or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and

property of his client when due or upon demand. However,
he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.

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.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS

CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

In support of complainant's claim, he presented acknowledgment

receipts of the money, all signed by the wife of the respondent. He also
presented sworn statements of his nephew, Melchor J. Sugata-on, and his
niece, Sonia G. Sugata-on.

~
- over- (491) - II
 '•

Resolution -4 - A. C. No. 9616

[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821·]
June 3, 2019
Based on the affidavit of Melchor J. Sugata-on, he accompanied his
uncle to the law office of the respondent to follow up on the development
on the subject transaction sometime in May or April 2005. They were told
by the respondent and his wife to give them more time to process the
documents. Also, for several times after the said visit, he would follow up
the same transaction to the respondent and his wife but they would give the
same response. It was also stated in the affidavit that he was instructed by
his uncle to retrieve all the documents endorsed by his uncle to the
respondent and his wife. He said that he was only able to retrieve three (3)
of the seven (7) certificates of titles.

While the affidavit of Sonia G. Sugata-on states that sometime in

May 2000, she was requested by her uncle to follow up with the
respondent the subject transaction. She made subsequent follow ups but
was consistently told only promises to finish the processing of documents.
She also stated that sometime in June 2006, her uncle instructed her
cousin, Melchor J. Sugata-on, to get the titles and other papers from the
respondent. However, her cousin was only able to retrieve three (3) titles.

Complainant further claim[s] in his affidavit, that he personally

turned over the documents to the wife of respondent, in the presence of
respondent himself. Also, it was stated that he made several follow-ups of the
development of the transaction to the respondent. He claimed that the
respondent, at that time, has made several excuses explaining the delay in the
processing of the documents.

In addition to the prayer for disbarment, complainant specifically

prayed that:

"2. Respondent be ordered to return the titles and other documents

his law office received from complainant, thru his wife Helen Orquia;

3. Respondent be ordered to pay the cost of money, or interests, on

the Php135,000.00 his law office received from the complainant at the rate
of 12% per annum from July 22, 2000; and

4. Respondent be ordered, if proper, to pay complainant at least

Php50,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees for forcing complainant to
litigate."

III. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSES

In his defense, respondent mainly stated that he has no knowledge

of the transaction regarding the transfer of titles to the name of the
complainant.

Respondent further explained that he had not received the amount

of Php135,000.00, allegedly representing expenses for registration, transfer
taxes and attorney's fees. In support thereof, respondent presented the sworn
statements of his law firm's secretary Felipa Jordan, former IBP Antique
Chapter Secretary, Sueza C. Gerona, and Record Officer of the Registry of
Deeds of Antique, Gilmar Nabor.

Ms. Felipa Jordan, in her affidavit, supports the allegations of the

respondent. She stated that respondent's law office did not enter into a
contract with the complainant. She stated that all the transactions of the
office are duly recorded and all payments are evidenced by a Bureau of

- over- (49W- II
Resolution -5 - A. C. No. 9616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821 .]
June 3, 2019
Internal Revenue (BIR) receipt. However, the subject transaction was
neither recorded nor properly receipted. Further, she claimed that
respondent was even surprised that he is involved in the present complaint
as the latter did not even know the complainant.

Based on the affidavit of Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona, former IBP

Secretary of Antique Chapter since 1981 to 2005, sometime in May 2000,
the complainant and Mrs. Helen Orquia sought her assistance to process
the transfer of six (6) certificates of title in the name of the complainant
that the latter purchased from other persons. She stated that she accepted
the transaction with the consent of the complainant. Hence, the
complainant endorsed the certificates of titles and documents of transfer to
her. Mrs. Orquia offered the amount of Php125,000.00 for the legal and
miscellaneous expenses needed to effect the transfer. Subsequently, she
also received the amount of Phpl0,000.00. She presented a sworn receipt
dated 22 July 2000. She further stated that while the documents were being
transferred, the IBP Building in San Jose, Antique adjoining the office of
the Register of Deeds of Antique was burned, and consequently, the
records inside the premises were virtually in disarray. Hence, there was a
delay in compliance with her obligation to the complainant.

Upon demand by the complainant, she later on returned the

documents and corresponding three (3) titles to the complainant in April
2005 thru the wife of the respondent. Upon verification with Ms. Gilmar
Nabor, employee of the Register of Deeds of Antique, the remaining three
(3) titles were already taken by Melchor J. Sugata-on, since he was in a
hurry to process the documents. Lastly, she already returned the full
amount she received based on the transaction. She deposited the amount of
ONE HUNDRED THIRTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(Php135,000.00) to the account of the complainant's counsel.

Based on the affidavit of Ms. Gilmar Nabor, employee of the

Register of Deeds of Antique, sometime in 2000, Mrs. Sueza C. Gerona
endorsed the processing of the transfer of the certificates of title to the
name of the complainant. Due to the accidental burning of the adjoining
building of the Office of the Register of Deeds, there was a delay in the
processing of the subject documents. Hence, he was constrained to return
the six (6) certificates of title. He initially turned over three (3) titles to the
wife of the respondent, while the three (3) remaining titles to the
representative of the complainant, Melchor Sugata-on. He further stated
that the respondent has never gone to the office of the Register of Deeds in
San Jose, Antique to process the subject documents.

IV. FINDINGS

Based on the records, this Commissioner finds that the respondent

should be reprimanded for his negligence and failure to act with reasonable
diligence in representing a client.

There was attorney-client

relationship

Complainant's evidence was sufficient to prove that he engaged the

services of the respondent. As held by the Supreme Court:

- over- (49~11
Resolution -6 - A. C. No. 9616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821 ]
June 3, 2019
"An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a
lawyer acquiesces or voluntarily permits the consultation of a
person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind,
consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional
advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should
have employed the lawyer on any previous occasion or that
any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for,
neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not
afterward undertake the case about which the consultation
was had, for as long as the advice and assistance of the
attorney is sought and received in matters pertinent to his
profession."

Complainant stated that he personally went to the law office of the

respondent, where he was assured that the legal work requested would be
performed. Complainant, relying on the assurance of Mrs. Sugata-on, paid
the amount required for attorney's fees, processing, legal fees, publication
and other miscellaneous expenses. Handwritten receipts and provisional
receipts signed by the wife of the respondent were presented by the
complainant.

It was also alleged that the complainant turned over all the
documents needed for the transfer of the properties in his name to the wife
of the respondent, in the presence of the respondent himself. This fact was
not denied by the respondent.

There were also constant follow-ups made to the respondent

himself. It is worthy to note that these follow-ups were made not only to
the wife of the respondent but also with the respondent himself at his law
office in 2000. In 2001, complainant was informed by the respondent and
his wife that the papers were being processed. The same excuse was made
in 2002, when complainant visited respondent. In fact, at that time,
complainant was even made to sign some papers since it was relayed that
the titles were ready for release by the Register of Deeds. The same excuse
was given when the niece of the complainant followed up the development
of the transaction. In 2005, complainant even visited the respondent and
discovered that he had not yet done his work. Respondent even pleaded
one last chance to comply with his obligation but he still failed to do so.

These instances were not denied by respondent. Respondent only

claims that he has no knowledge of the transaction, which is improbable in
the instant case. The aforementioned follow ups should have prompted him
to act accordingly. Even if it was not him personally who accepted the
money from the complainant, an attorney-client relationship is already
present. As held by the Supreme Court, "The employment of a counsel or
the authority to employ an attorney, it might be pointed out, need not be
proved in writing; such fact could be inferred from circumstantial
evidence."

The claim of the respondent that another person, Mrs. Sueza C.

Gerona, assumed responsibility of the obligation does not disprove the
attorney-client relationship. Neither was the involvement of Mr. Gilmar
Nabor remove the respondent from his relationship with the complainant.
From the circumstances surrounding the said transaction, the respondent
has assumed responsibility for the processing of the documents as he has
deliberately led the complainant to believe that he was capable and in the
process of transferring the titles to the name of the respondent.

~
- over- (491) - II
•'

Resolution -7 - A. C. No. 9616

[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821']
June 3, 2019
It is also worthy to note that the wife of the respondent did not give
a sworn statement to support the claims of her husband. The respondent's
wife being the person with whom the alleged confusion arose.

Respondent failed to act with

reasonable diligence in
representing the complainant

The failure of the respondent in performing the acts required of him

constitutes violation of his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically:

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT

WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.

As held by the Supreme Court, "This Court has consistently held,

in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the
obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation." Respondent
has been remiss of his obligation to the client who has in fact paid the
required fees for the transfer of the titles to his name.

There is want of diligence when the respondent failed to even start

with the transfer of the document despite receipt of money from the
complainant. Had not the complainant demanded for the return of the
documents and the money, the respondent would not even bother to pay
attention to the transaction at hand.

The respondent has also failed to inform the complainant of the

alleged fire in the adjacent office of the Register of Deeds of Antique
sometime in 2003, which supposedly delayed the processing of documents.
"It is the duty of an attorney to advise his client promptly whenever he has
any information to give which is important that the client receive."

More importantly, despite repeated follow ups by the complainant,

respondent did not even bother to determine whether the said obligation
was being done. He has given several excuses for the delay, which he did not
deny, bolstering the validity of the engagement of his services.

Noteworthy is the fact that complainant has given a consideration

in engaging the services of the respondent. In an almost similar case, the
Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for his
failure to return client's funds which were given to him for the expenses
for the transfer of title over real property and in payment for his legal
services. The Supreme Court held:

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. 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

~
- over- (491) - II
Resolution -8 - A. C. No. 9616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821']
June 3, 2019
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. The conversion by a lawyer [of] funds entrusted to
him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics
and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.

Conversely, in the present case, although the money was returned

to the complainant, the other documents endorsed were not returned. The
length of time within which the consideration was returned raises the
presumption of misappropriation of funds in violation of the professional
ethics.

"A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue representing a

client should inform the latter of his predicament and ask that he be
allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the
services of another counsel who can study the situation and work out a
solution." For six (6) years, the respondent has led the complainant to
believe that the documents were being processed only to later on return the
money and other documents without any development in the transaction.
Clearly, the case is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
As held by the Supreme Court.

The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for

legal services in handling complainant's case and,
subsequently, failing to render the servicess is a clear
violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Respondent is liable for

administrative penalties;
however, complainant is not
entitled to the other reliefs prayed for.

"The failure to exercise due diligence or the

abandonment of the client's cause makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed in him. It
is a breach of his undertaking with his client. To warrant
suspension or disbarment, however, the negligence or
carelessness in the performance of duty should only be
gross in character but should have caused material
prejudice to the client's interest as well. Mere negligence or
inattention which produces no pecuniary damage to the
client may only justify, reprimand or censure except when
the breach of duty to client also constitutes a gross violation
of obligation to the court, in which case, a severer sanction
such as suspension from the practice of law, may be
warranted."

Although there was a clear violation of the Code of Professional

Ethics by the respondent, complainant has failed to present material
prejudice to the client's interest. It was admitted that the money given as

~
- over- (491) - II
..
Resolution -9 - A. C. No. 9616
[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821 l]
June 3, 2019
consideration for the services engaged were returned by the respondent
thru another person, hence, the penalty of reprimand is in order.

As for the other reliefs prayed for, it is well settled that

"Disbarment cases are sui generis. Being neither criminal nor civil in
nature, these are not intended to inflict penal or civil sanctions. The main
question to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to continue to be
an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice."

Hence, complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. As held

by the Supreme Court:

"Complainant's prayer for damages is denied. A

proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a
civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken solely for the public welfare.
As held in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, the attorney is called upon
to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the
court. The complainant or the person who called the attention
of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome
except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice."

In sum, respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence m

representing a client constitutes violation of his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility which warrant the imposition of administrative
sanction against him.

Thus, respondent should be REPRIMANDED.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds sufficient reason to

discipline respondent and recommends that the respondent be
REPRIMANDED.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig City, September 20, 2010. 3

In Resolution No. XX-2011-301 dated December 10, 2011, the Board

of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved, with modification, the
Report and Recommendati.on of the Investigating Commissioner, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and for Atty. Orquia's failure to act with
reasonable diligence in representing his client, suspended him from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months, directed him to account for all
the documents and to return all the documents including the three (3) titles,
plus payment of interest of 12% per annum of the amount received from
complainant within sixty (60) days from the finality of the decision and to

Id. at 121-131. (Citations omitted)

~
- over- (491) - II
 '.

Resolution - 10 - A. C. No. 9616

[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821 J
June 3, 2019

notify the IBP within sixty (60) days from compliance thereof, otherwise,
severe penalty shall be imposed.

Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the

evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to AFFIRM
the same. Respondent Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. He is further directed
to account for all the documents and to return all of the same, including the
three (3) titles, and to pay interest of twelve (12%) per annum of the amount
received from complainant within sixty (60) days from the finality of this
Resolution and to notify the IBP within sixty (60) days from compliance
thereof.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

Atty. Alexander G. Gironella

Counsel for Complainant
Unit 213, Adale Condominium IV
Ortigas A venue, Greenhills
1502 San Juan City

Atty. Angeles R. Orquia, Jr.

Respondent
ORQUIA LAW OFFICE
2/F, Horace-Homer Bldg.
Salana Street, San Jose
5700 Antique

Atty. Marlou B. Ubano

Director for Bar Discipline
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1600 Pasig City

Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa

Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT
Supreme Court, Manila

JUDICIAL & BAR COUNCIL

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

Supreme Court, Manila
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. 12-7-1-SC]

LIBRARY SERVICES
Supreme Court, Manila

AC-9616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1821] (491) - II

/en/ URES