Lawyer's fiduciary obligations

LAWYER’S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS

Angeles vs. Uy, Jr., 330 SCRA 6, 17 (2000)

Angeles v Uy

A.C. No. 5019. April 6, 2000

Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

Trajano manifested that she had already settled in full the civil aspect in a Criminal Case P36,500.00. that she paid P20,000.00 directly to the Del Rosario and the balance of P16,500.00 was delivered to Atty. Uy, the lawyer of Del Rosario.

Uy argued that his client did not like to accept the money.

But the assertion of the lawyer was belied by his own client, who manifested her willingness to accept the money.

The Court again directed Atty. Uy to produce the money but the latter argued that he kept it in his office. He was ordered to get it but thereafter, Uy did not show up. The money was only given days thereafter.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Uy violated Canon 16 of CPR

HELD: YES.

"Keeping the money in his possession without his client's knowledge only provided Atty. Uy the tempting opportunity to appropriate for himself the money belonging to his client. This situation should, at all times, be avoided by members of the bar. Like judges, lawyers must not only be clean; they must also appear clean. This way, the people's faith in the justice system would remain undisturbed."

One (1) month suspension

Nakpil vs. Valdez, 186 SCRA 758 (1998)

FACTS:

For lack of funds, Napkil requested Atty. Valdez to purchase the Moran property for him. Valdez would keep the property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Title was then issued in respondent’s name.

When Jose Nakpil died, Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his widow. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conflict of interest between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the complainant.

HELD:

YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for one (1) year.

RATIO:

Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the two claimants who are creditors of the estate.

In the estate proceedings, the duty of respondent’s law firm was to contest the claims of these two creditors but which claims were prepared by respondent’s accounting firm. It was respondent’s duty to inhibit either of his firms from said proceedings to avoid the probability of conflict of interest.

Liwag vs. Neri, 107 Phil. 852 (1960)

FACTS:

The spouses Pineda are indebted to the complainant. Liwag hired Atty. Neri after failure of payment to talk to the Pinedas and they pleaded for time to pay their indebtedness. when no payment has been made, the respondent wrote a demand letter threatening to take judicial action if the Pinedas will not satisfy their debt. Liwag gave neri MONEY as filing fee for the necessary complaint but, Neri did not file the said complaint, saying the Pinedas gave their assurance to pay.

ISSUE: WON respondent committed a breach of professional ethics

HELD:

Yes, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already been sued in court and did not return the amount intended for the filing fee.

Considering however, that the respondent has not yet received anything for his services and that the complainant has subsequently been paid, disbarment or even suspension of the respondent from the practice of his profession would be too harsh and unkind.

REPRIMAND

Diaz vs. Kapunan, 45 Phil. 848 (1932)

Facts:  When Diaz and Mendezona’s business failed to prosper and suffered losses, they agreed that Mendezona recognized a debt in favor of Diaz laid upon Mendezona’s hacienda. After nonpayment, the hacienda was offered for sale at public auction. Diaz’s lawyer, Atty. Kapunan told the deputy sheriff of Leyte that he was ready to bid on the property up to 16k in order to assist the Mendezona family.

 

It was found that Kapunan was also the lawyer of the Mendezona family and was given extensive authority. When Kapunan took part in the sale, it must be assumed that he was bidding in representation of his clients and not for the benefit of his clients.

Issue: WON violated A1459 of CC and A 542 of Penal Code

Held: No,   because he has not purchased property at a public or judicial auction and because his participation was in representation of his client. 

 

The agreement of both parties wherein Diaz pays Kapunan the sum of 1,000 pesos to withdraw from the sale is exactly the situation covered by article 542 of the Penal Code. since the complainant is equally guilty with the responded Kapunan and the latter was found to be acting in good faith, Kapunan shall only be reprimanded.

Canlas vs. CA, 164 SCRA 160 (1988)

G.R. No. L-77691        August 8,1988

FACTS:

Respondent Herrera own several parcels of land. He secured loans from L and R corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the parcels of land. Upon the maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties failure to pay until maturity. Compromise agreement was made to insure for another year including attorney’s fees of 100k to Atty. Canlas

Still unable to pay, Canlas moved for execution insofar as his fees were concerned even without collection. Canlas who offered to advance the money was able to redeem the parcels of land and to register the same in his name but Herrera alleged that it was falsified but the latter was acquitted of falsification.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Client’s actions violates his duties to his client.

HELD:

Yes. The attorney’s fees are unreasonable. Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates.

A lawyer’s efforts partaking of a shakedown of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for money. However, there is no violation of Art. 1491 of CC because the property is no longer in litigation.

Capulong vs. Aliño, 22 SCRA 491 (1968)

CAPULONG VS ALINO

A.C. NO. 381

FEBRUARY 10. 1968

FACTS:

Sps. Capulong lost a civil case and they gave Atty. Alino P298.00 for fees in appealing the case but it was dismissed because ALino failed to pay the docket fees and other required fees.

Atty. Aliño claimed that he was given the option to either use the money for appeal if in his judgment an appeal is proper or to appropriate the same for his legal services. after four postponement and a chance given by SC of the complaint against him, he still failed to adduce additional evidence and still asked for postponement and finally, he failed to submit a memorandum.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aliño should be subjected to disciplinary action.

HELD:

The act of a lawyer in unduly and knowingly failing to remit to the Court of Appeals the money entrusted to him by his clients for the purpose of paying appellate docket fees, appeal bond, printing of the record on appeal, and appellant's brief, which act resulted in the dismissal of his clients' appeal, indicates high degree of irresponsibility and his unworthiness to continue as a member of the legal profession. Aliño was disbarred by the Supreme Court.

Calejo vs. Soriano, A.C. No. 7418; October 9, 2007

Austria-martinez, J.

Facts:. Celaje alleged that Soriano asked for money to be able to be used as an injunction bond but the complainant found out that it was unnecessary as the application for writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent  asked money on several occasions to spend for or to be given to the judge Quijano handling their case but the latter denied these allegations. Complainant said that the amounts given in several instances were undocumented and was not acknowledged in writing. The amount intended for an injuction bond however, some were made in writing and the respondent denies the charges.

Issue: Whether admin liable canon 16

Held: Yes. Canon 16 The lawyer’s failure to return money given to him for the filing of a writ of injunction, gives rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. It is a gross violation of general morality and of professional ethics and impairs public confidence in the legal profession, which in this case, deserves punishment of two years’ suspension from practice.

Penticostes vs. Ibañez, 304 SCRA 281 (1999)

Romero, J.

FACTS:

In 1989Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS premiums which complaint was assigned to Prosecutor Ibañez. In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion gave the amount of P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her SSS contribution in arrears. Respondent did not pay the SSS, until 1990.

ISSUE:

Whether

RULING:

The belated payment does not excuse his misconduct violating rule 1.01 of CPR. The failure of a prosecutor to immediately remit to the SSS the amount given by the accused as unpaid remittances gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use, which a gross violation of general morality as well as professional ethics. Though not a private lawyer, this rule applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks, pursuant to Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Reprimanded. NOTE CANON 16

Daroy vs. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304 (1975)

FACTS: Atty. Legaspi served as counsel for a set of heirs in an intestate proceeding for an estate’s settlement. The award to his clients came into his possession. Legaspi moved to turn over the amount to his clients. He later sent a letter their way explaining that he had spent the money to fulfill a debt and promised to return it but, he never did.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT Legaspi should be disbarred.

RULING: YES. Section 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be punished if he unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded

Under. Section 27 of the same rule LEgaspiis indeed guilty of deceit, malpractice and professional misconduct  for having misappropriated the funds of his clients. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity to private trust. Considering all of the foregoing. Disbarred.

Sotto vs. Samson, 115 Phil 710 (1962)

Facts:

The case is about Samson annulling the sale of a lot executed by her in favour of Atty. Sotto. She alleges that Sotto had taken advantage of her financial difficulties and mental weakness and of the confidence that she had given to him. In his defense, Sotto averred that the action already prescribed; that judicial license had been granted her to dispose of said lot, and that there was due consider for the purchase. He also mentioned that she was estopped from asserting this claim because she had ratified the sale on various occasions. CA favored Samson

Issue:

Petitioner Sotto alleges that the CA erred in holding:

That the sale is null and void

That the new deed of sale on September 17, 1932 executed by Samson in favor of Sotto is also null and void

That this action (the one in 1941) has not prescribed

Ruling:

Yes. Sotto was disqualified to buy  properties in litigation under Article 1459 of the Civil Code. Because of their client-attorney relationship, Sotto probably unduly influences Samson, not only to sell the lot to him but also to accept terms less favorable to her.

Yes.

The Court declares that the document to be avoided is the one executed by Samson in 1932 after the withdrawal of the appeal. The litigation had not terminated on September 17, 1932, it appearing that this SC granted the motion only on September 26, 1932. Up to that time, the appeal -- in which Sotto represented Samson -- was pending in Court.

           

Third issue:

The period of prescription should be counted only from the severance of the attorney-and-client bonds; because it is only then that the controlling influence of the attorney has ceased.

Laig vs. CA, 82 SCRA 294 (1978)

Facts: Respondent Galero, a homestead awardee, made a double sale of homestead. The first sale was executed at the residence of the second vendee, respondent Verzo, where the first vendee, Atty. Laig, was a boarder. It was not registered but the heirs of the first vendee, upon the latter's death, wrote the Register of Deeds informing him of such sale.  Galero, with the help of the lawyer-son of the Register of Deeds, Atty.  Lapak,  was able to secure a second owner's duplicate of title of the property, and then executed the second deed of sale.

Both vendees obtained separate approvals of their separate deeds of sale over the same homestead. It was the second vendee who first registered her instrument  and a transfer certificate of title was issued in her name.

Petitioners sued for reconveyance with damages but the second vendee was favored.

Issue: Whether Atty. Lapak and other respondents, be held liable for damages for approving the sale of one and the same piece of land in favor of two different persons

Held:  Yes, Atty. Lapak procured the duplicate, under clearly dubious circumstances. it was done without observing the required formalities of notice and hearing. Atty. Lapak, as notary public, executed the deed of sale between Galero and Verzo, and assisted Verzo for its approval.

When a lawyer procures any certificate of title or owner's duplicate certificate, and refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken, he or she may be not only prosecuted but also disciplined as a member of the Bar.

Go Beltran vs. Fernandez, 70 Phil. 248 (1940)

Adm. Case No. 747 . June 27, 1940

Moran, J.

Facts:

One Pajaron, with his spouse Ypan, conveyed to the complainant Go Beltran two parcels of land as described in the deed of sale. Misunderstanding as to identity of the parcel of lands  developed resulting to many suits. Pending appeal of one of the cases, Atty. Fernandez, lawyer of Ypan purchased from Ypan a lot in question in one of the cases.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Fernandez shall be suspended

Held: yes.

Respondent has accordingly violated article 1459 of the Civil Code, in breach of professional conduct. In accordance with the exemplary punishment we have set forth in Hernandez vs. Villanueva (40 Phil., 775), which involved a like breach of professional ethics, respondent herein is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months effective as of the date this judgment becomes final.