Yu vs. Atty.

Cesar Tajanlangit
A.O. NO. 5691, 13 March 2009

Facts:

YU filed a complaint against Atty. Tajanlangit for violating of Rules 18.03 and 16.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Where complainant had engaged the services of
respondent as defense counsel in a criminal case that resulted to his conviction. He claimed
that after the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied by the trial court,
instead of filing an appeal, respondent filed a petition for certiorari 3 under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, complainant averred that respondent failed to
return the bailbond to him in the amount P195,000.00 after having withdrawn the
same. Further, complainant stated that respondent had failed to pay the telephone bill he
had incurred during his stay at complainant's house.

While the complainant explained that his legal services were limited to filing the petition
for certiorari, that at the time, complainant had already been convicted by the trial court.
And complainant had authorized and instructed him to withdraw the cash bond in order to
apply the amount as payment for legal fees and reimbursement for expenses. With regard
to the unpaid telephone bill, respondent alleged that he was not presented a copy of the
billing statement despite his previous requests.

Issue:

1. 18.03
2. 16.01

Ruling:

1. NO

Repodnent cannot be liable under Rule 18.03 of the CPR. Records show that respondent
lawyer serve as Yu’s counsel from the withdrawal of appearance of complainant's lawyers
and denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and the supplement The court
finds that there the respondent’s filing of petition for certiorari instead of an appeal is
adequate. There can be no negligence in handling the legal matter entrusted to him by
complainant.

2. YES.

Although Yu and Atty. Tajanlangit undergone a special agreement supporting the

withdrawal; of the cash bonds and Atty. TAjanlangit is justified from applying the cash
bonds to the payment of his services and reimbursement of the expenses he had incurred,
he is not excused to render an accounting.

In the case of Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, 15 the Court held that "(t)he highly fiduciary
and confidential relation of attorney and client requires that the lawyer should
promptly account for all the funds received from, or held by him for, the
client."16 The fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money in
his hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the obligation to make
a prompt accounting.17

Respondent is still be required to settle the telephone bills considering that there is no
manifestation to that the same has been paid.