CANON 16 amounting to ₱100,000.

00, heclaimed to have refused to file a

"fraudulent cadastral case." He likewise denied having committed to
file one or to refer the case to another lawyer.8
A.C. No. 9615               March 5, 2013

Thus, Atty. Jiz asseverated that he was not remiss in his legal duties to
GLORIA P. JINON, Complainant,
Gloria.Denying liability to reimburse Gloria for any amount, much less
vs.
for ₱45,000.00,he claimed that he had rendered the corresponding
ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ, Respondent.
legal services to her with fidelity and candor. In particular, he pointed
to the demand letters he sent to Viola for the return of the subject
DECISION titleandto Rose,the tenant of the

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Leganes Property, requiring the submission of the itemized expenses

for the repair of the leased property. He also claimed to have caused
the execution of a lease contract covering the Leganes
Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 for disciplinary action
Property.Hence, he prayed that the complaint against him be
filed by complainant Gloria P. Jinon (Gloria) before the Committee on
dismissed.
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
against respondent Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz (Atty. Jiz) for neglecting her
case, misappropriating funds, and assigning her case to another lawyer The Action and Recommendation of the IBP
without her consent, in violation of the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
After the parties’ submission of their respective position papers, 9 the
CBD, through Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva (Commissioner
The Facts Villanueva), submitted its October 8, 2010 Report and
Recommendation.10 He found Atty. Jiz to have been remiss in his duty
to update his client, Gloria, regarding her case, and to respond to
The complaint alleged that Gloria, after the death of her brother
Gloria’s letter terminating his services and demanding the refund of
Charlie in July 2001, entrusted two (2) land titles covering properties
the sum of ₱45,000.00, in violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
owned by their deceased parents to her sister-in-law, Viola J. Jinon
Code of Professional Responsibility which states:
(Viola): one located in Mangasina, Sta. Barbara, Iloilo (Sta. Barbara
Property) and the other at No. 12 Valencia St., Poblacion, Leganes,
Iloilo (Leganes Property) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
No. T-119598.2 shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information.
Eventually, Gloria sold the Sta. Barbara Property, which resulted in
disagreements between her and Viola regarding their respective shares Commissioner Villanueva also observed that the scope of the legal
in the proceeds. Consequently, Viola refused to return to Gloria TCT services that Atty. Jiz undertook to perform for Gloria could have been
No. T-119598, prompting Gloria to engage the services of Atty. Jizon clarified had he been more candid with the exact fees that he intended
April 29, 2003 to recover the said title, for which she immediately paid to collect.Recognizing, however, the legal services rendered by Atty.
an acceptance fee of ₱17,000.00.3 Jizin the form of legal advice, sending of demand letters to Viola and
Rose and collecting rentals from the latter,he found the amount of
₱17,000.00 as sufficient and reasonable remuneration for his
In their subsequent meeting, Atty. Jiz assured the transfer of the title
services.Moreover, Atty. Jiz’sdisregard of the CBD’s orders – to submit
in Gloria's name.
his answer on time and attend hearings – showed disrespect to the
judiciary and his fellow lawyers.
On August 13, 2003, Gloria, upon Atty. Jiz's instructions, remitted the
amount of ₱45,000.004
With these findings, Commissioner Villanueva held Atty. Jiz to have
committed improper conduct and recommended that he be (1) ordered
to answer for the expenses of the transfer. However, when she later to refund to Gloria the amount of ₱45,000.00 with legal interest, and
inquired about the status of her case, she was surprised to learn from (2) reprimanded, with a stern warning that a more drastic punishment
Atty. Jiz that a certain Atty. Caras was handling the same. Moreover, will be imposed upon him for a repetition of the same acts.
when she visited the Leganes Property, which has been leased out to
one Rose Morado (Rose), she discovered that Atty. Jiz has been
On December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution
collecting the rentals for the period June 2003 up to October 2004,
No. XX-2011-303,11 adopting with modification the Commission’s
which amounted to ₱12,000.00. When she demanded for the rentals,
Report and Recommendation, to wit:
Atty. Jiz gave her only ₱7,000.00, explaining that the balance of
₱5,000.00 would be added to the expenses needed for the transfer of
the title of the Leganes Property to her name. RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-
The foregoing incidents prompted Gloria to terminate the legal services
entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A" and
of Atty. Jiz and demand the return of the amounts of ₱45,000.00 and
finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
₱5,000.00 through a letter5dated September 22, 2004, which has
and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent remiss in
remained unheeded.
his duty and for disregarding the Orders of the Commission, Atty.
Leonardo E. Jiz is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
To date, Atty. Jiz has not complied with his undertaking to recover TCT (2) years and to Ordered to Restitute complainant the amount of
No. T-119598 from Viola and effect its transfer in Gloria’s name, and ₱45,000.00 and 12% interest from the time he received the amount
has failed to return her money despite due demands. Hence, the until fully paid within sixty (60) days from notice.
instant administrative complaint praying that Atty. Jiz: (1) be ordered
to reimburse the total amount of ₱67,000.00 (₱17,000.00 acceptance
The Issue
fee, ₱45,000.00 for the transfer of title, and ₱5,000.00 as unremitted
rentals for the Leganes Property); and (2) be meted disciplinary action
that the Court may deem fit under the circumstances. The sole issue before the Court is whether Atty. Jiz should be held
administratively liable for having been remiss in his duties as a lawyer
with respect to the legal services he had undertaken to perform for his
In his Answer6 andPosition Paper,7 Atty. Jiz admitted accepting Gloria’s
client, Gloria.
case but claimed that it was only for the purpose of protecting her
rights against her sister-in-law, Viola. According to him, the extent of
his legal services covered the negotiation and consummation of the The Court's Ruling
sale of the Sta. Barbara Propertyfor a fee of ₱75,000.00;recovery of
TCT No.T-119598from Viola; and the possible filing of an ejectment
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the
case against the tenant of the Leganes Property. For his attorney’s
findings of Commissioner Villanueva and the IBP Board of Governors
fees, Gloria had partially paid the sum of ₱62,000.00 inclusive of the
that Atty. Jiz was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his
acceptance fee of ₱17,000.00, leavingan unpaid balance of
client’s case, misappropriating her funds and disobeying the CBD’s
₱13,000.00.
lawful orders requiring the submission of his pleadings and his
attendance at hearings. He should thus be suspended from the
Atty. Jiz also alleged that Gloria approached him to secure another practice of law in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.
owner’s copy of a title she purportedly lost, but which would turn out
to be in Viola’s possession. Despite her offer to pay legal fees
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on In Rollon v. Naraval,21 the Court suspended respondent Atty. Naraval
those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal from the practice of law for two (2) years for failing to render any legal
qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to service even after receiving money from the complainant and for
maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, failing to return the money and documents he received.
honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold
duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
Similarly, in Small v. Banares,22 the respondent was suspended from
accordance with the values and norms embodied in the
the practice of law for two (2) years for failing to file a case for which
Code.12 "Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is
the amount of ₱80,000.00 was given him by his client; to update the
wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in
latter of the status of the case;and to return the said amount upon
their private capacity."13
demand.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Likewise, in Villanueva v. Gonzales, 23 the Court meted the same
punishment to the respondent lawyer for (1) having failed to serve his
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND client with fidelity, competence and diligence; (2) refusing to account
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. for and to return his client’s money as well as the titles over certain
properties owned by the latter; and (3) failing to update his client on
the status of her case and to respond to her requests for information,
RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
all in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
collected or received for or from the client.

Considering the foregoing relevant jurisprudence, the Court finds it

x x x           x x x          x x x
appropriate to adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors to suspend Atty. Jiz from the practice of law for two (2)
RULE 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client years. With respect to the amount that he should refund to Gloria, only
when due or upon demand. the sum of ₱45,000.00 plus legal interest should be returned to her,
considering the finding that the initial payment of ₱17,000.00 was
x x x           x x x          x x x reasonable and sufficient remuneration for the actual legal services he
rendered.

CANON 18. – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. The Court notes that in administrative proceedings, only substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is
x x x           x x x          x x x required.24 Having carefully scrutinized the records of this case, the
Court therefore finds that the standard of substantial evidence has
RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to been more than satisfied.
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonardo E. Jiz, having clearly violated
x x x           x x x          x x x Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and disobeyed lawful orders of the
Commission on Bar Discipline, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
Undeniably, "when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to
exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good return to complainant Gloria P. Jinon the full amount of ₱45,000.00
father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on with legal interest of 6% per annum from date of demand on
him by his client and makes him answerable not just to client but also September 22, 2004 up to the finality of this Decision and 12% per
to the legal profession, the court and society." 14 annum from its finality until paid.

Moreover, money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the to be entered into respondent's records as attorney. Copies shall
purpose, should be immediately returned. 15 "A lawyer’s failure to likewise be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts concerned.
rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own
use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. Such act is a
gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It SO ORDERED.
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment."16

In this case, Atty. Jiz committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a
member of the bar.1âwphi1 Aside from the demand letter17 dated April
29, 2003 which he sent to Viola, he failed to perform any other
positive act in order to recover TCT No. T-119598 from Viola for more
than a year. He also failed to return, despite due demand, the funds
allocated for the transfer of the title that he received from her. A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983

The claim that the total amount of ₱62,000.00 that Gloria paid him RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee. ATTY.
was for the services he rendered in facilitating the sale of the Sta. PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial
Barbara Property is belied by the receipt 18 dated April 29, 2003, which Lawyers Association, Inc., complainant,
states that the amount of ₱17,000.00 paid by Gloria was for vs.
"consultation and other legal services" he would render "up to and ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.
including April 30, 2003." His handwritten notation at the bottom
portion made it clear that he received the said amount "as full
payment." He likewise failed to substantiate his averment that he
actually facilitated the sale of the Sta. Barbara Property.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Furthermore, respondent’s infractions were aggravated by his failure to
comply with CBD’s directives for him to file his pleadings on time and Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine
to religiously attend hearings, demonstrating not only his Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been
irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow previously admitted to the Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S. Abad could not
lawyers. Such conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon deny and had to admit the practice. In exculpation he gives the
to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost following lame explanation:
in complying with court directives as an officer of the court. 19 As a
member of the bar, he ought to have known that the orders of the
1. On July 23, 1979, respondent conformably with the Resolution of
CBD as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases
the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc dated July 10, 1979, ... prior to
against lawyers were not mere requests but directives which should
his taking the Oath of Office as a member of the bar, paid his Bar
have been complied with promptly and completely.20
Admission Fee in the amount of P175.00 as shown by Official Receipt
No. 8128792, ... paid his Certification Fee in the amount of P5.00 as
shown by Official Receipt No. 8128793, ... and also paid his
Membership Dues for the year 1979-80 to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines as shown by Official Receipt No. 83740,... .

2. On July 26, 1979, Atty. Romeo Mendoza, the then Clerk of Court of
the Honorable Supreme Court, included the respondent as among
those taking the Oath of Office as Member of the Bar as shown by a
Letter of Request dated July 23, 1979, ... A.C. No. 10662
[Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2654]
3. At around Eleven o' clock in the morning of July 26, 1979, while
waiting for my turn to take my Oath as a member of the Bar, I was JUN B. LUNA, Complainant,
made to sign my Lawyer's Oath by one of the Clerk in the Office of the vs.
Bar Confidant and while waiting there, Atty. Romeo Mendoza told me ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA, Respondent.
that Chief Justice, the Honorable Enrique M. Fernando wants to talk to
me about the Reply of Mr. Jorge Uy (Deceased) to my Answer to his DECISION
Complaint. The Honorable Chief Justice told me that I have to answer
the Reply and for which reason the taking of my Lawyer's Oath was
further suspended. * LEONEN, J.:

4. On July 31, 1979, I filed my Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy's Answer with a Before us is a disbarment Complaint against Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita
Prayer that the Honorable Supreme Court determines my fitness to be for his failure to deliver to his client, complainant Jun B. Luna, the
a member of the Bar; P100,000.00 settlement proceeds he received after entering into a
Compromise Agreement in the foreclosure case without his client’s
consent.
5. While waiting for the appropriate action which the Honorable
Supreme Court may take upon my Prayer to determine my fitness to
be a member of the Bar, I received a letter from the Integrated Bar of On April 7, 2010, Jun B. Luna (Luna) filed an Affidavit-
the Philippines, Quezon City Chapter dated May 10, 1980 informing the Complaint1 against his lawyer, Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita (Atty.
respondent of an Annual General Meeting together with my Statement Galarrita), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
of Account for the year 1980-1981, ... .
Luna alleged that he retained Atty. Galarrita’s legal services in filing a
6. Believing that with my signing of the Lawyer's Oath on July 26, foreclosure Complaint2 on October 14, 2002 before the Regional Trial
1979 and my Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy's (Deceased) Answer, the Court of Gumaca, Quezon.3 The Complaint against one Jose Calvario
Honorable Supreme Court did not ordered for the striking of my name (Calvario) alleged that Calvario borrowed P100,000.00 from Luna. This
in the Roll of Attorneys with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and loan was secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage 4 over a parcel of
therefore a Member in Good Standing, I paid my membership due and land in Quezon Province.5 Due to non-payment of the loan, Luna filed
other assessments to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon the Complaint praying for payment of the obligation with interest, and
City Chapter, as shown by Official Receipt No. 110326 and Official issuance of a foreclosure decree upon Calvario’s failure to fully pay
Receipt No. 0948, ... . Likewise respondent paid his Professional Tax within the period.6
Receipt as shown by Official Receipt No. 058033 and Official Receipt
No. 4601685, ... . The parties tried to amicably settle the case during pre-trial, followed
by Luna’s presentation and offer of evidence. 7
7. On February 28, 1981, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon
City Chapter also included the name of the respondent as a Qualified Atty. Galarrita opted to enter into a settlement with the other party
Voter for the election of officers and directors for the year 1981- after his formal offer of evidence. 8 They submitted
1982, ... . the Kasunduan9 (Compromise Agreement) before the trial court on
February 14, 2006.10 It provided that Calvario would pay Luna
8. Respondent's belief and good faith was further enhanced by the fact P105,000.00 as payment for his mortgaged land and, in turn, Luna
that on January 8, 1981, Complainant Jorge Uy in SBC607 died and would cause the removal of the encumbrance annotation on the land
herein respondent submitted a verified Notice and Motion with the title.11 The trial court approved 12 the Compromise Agreement in its
Honorable Supreme Court on April 27, 1981; notifying the Court of this February 20, 2006 Decision.13 Luna alleged that Atty. Galarrita never
fact with a prayer that herein respondent be allowed to take his Oath informed him of this Compromise Agreement, and did not deliver to
as Member of the Bar; him the P100,000.00 settlement proceeds Atty. Galarrita had
received.14
9. Thereafter, respondent was again assessed by the Integrated Bar
for his 1981-1982 membership due and other assessment for which Luna’s Complaint attached a copy of the Counsel’s Report 15 dated
the undersigned paid as shown by Official Receipt No. 132734 and August 12, 2003 where Atty. Galarrita proposed and provided
Official Receipt No. 3363, ... . justifications for settlement, and waived any compensation for his
services in the case:16
10. Respondent likewise paid his Professional Tax Receipt for 1981 as
shown by Official Receipt No. 3195776, ... . Please take note that Mr. Jose Calvario is willing, able and ready to pay
you IN CASH the full amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand
Pesos (Php110,000.00), no more no less. While we are aware that
11. Respondent likewise has a Certificate of Membership in the it’s your desire to fight this case to its ultimate legal conclusion, allow
Integrated Bar of the Philippines as well as a Certificate of Membership us nonetheless, to present the pros and cons of having this case be
in Good Standing with the Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar amicably settled.
of the Philippines, ....

Point One: He has in his possession the original copy of the checks
Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances which he has you issued showing that upon signing of the Contract Of Real
narrated do not constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and the Estate Mortgage, he received from you Eighty Eight Thousand
right to practise law thereafter. He should know that two essential Pesos (Php88,000.00) only. Meaning, he has already paid in advance
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his his interest of 12% or the equivalent of Twelve Thousand
lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Pesos (Php12,000.00) when the contract was signed. Consequently,
Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.) it is useless for us to argue before the court that his principal
indebtedness amounted to One Hundred Thousand
The proven charge against respondent Abad constitutes contempt of Pesos (Php100,000.00). Hence, if you accept the compromise
court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.) settlement of One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (Php110,000.00),
you stand to gain Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (Php22,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined Five Hundred
(P500.00) pesos payable to this Court within ten (10) days from ....
notice failing which he shall serve twenty-five (25) days imprisonment.
Rest assured, your undersigned counsel leaves it to your better
SO ORDERED. judgment as to whether he deserves to be paid for his legal services
regarding this case against Mr. Jose Calvario.
Repeat, I will no longer ask from you any compensation for my Agreement,38 Luna shall pay him _4,000.00 monthly. 39 Luna should
services regarding this case.17 (Emphasis in the original) have paid P48,000.00 as of November 17, 2006, and after four years
with no revocation, termination, or nullification, Luna’s unpaid
obligation amounted to P208,000.00.40 He listed other unpaid amounts
Atty. Galarrita wrote Luna the following: Counsel’s Reports, Requests
for his legal services.41 Atty. Galarrita, thus, argues for an application
for Funding, and Statements of Accounts in relation to case
of the rule on retaining lien.42 Atty. Galarrita also raises the two-year
developments, retainer’s fees, and reimbursement for expenses
prescription under Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the
incurred.18
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. 43 More
than four years elapsed since their last communication in 2006 when
After learning of the settlement, Luna wrote Atty. Galarrita: "I was so the Compromise Agreement became final.44
surprised when you went into plea agreement for Compromise
Agreement without my knowledge [a]nd beyond to [sic] what we had
In his December 4, 2010 Report and Recommendation, 45 the
discussed."19 Atty. Galarrita replied through the Letter20 dated January
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner46 found
27, 2006, stating in part:
that Atty. Galarrita violated Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended "his suspension from the practice of
I entered into an amicable settlement with Mr. Jose Calvario because I law for a period of one (1) year[.]"47
am certain that in this kind of case, a compromise is better than
WINNING it.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, in its April
15, 2013 Resolution No. XX-2013-441,48 adopted and approved with
Everything is transparent. You even told me that you are not modification the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and
interested to acquire the land that’s why you signaled your approval of Recommendation in that Atty. Galarrita is recommended to be
a compromise. "suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and [o]rdered
to [r]eturn the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos
I was hoping that you already understood my situation. As I have told to complainant without prejudice to the filing of a collection case for
you, I can’t waste my time going to Gumaca every now and then. retainer’s fee against complainant." 49 The Board of Governors denied
Traveling time is too precious for my cases here in Metro Manila. reconsideration in its May 3, 2014 Resolution No. XXI-2014-270. 50

The point is: I did not receive any appearance fee for the numerous The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that "no motion for
hearings conducted there despite sending several statements of reconsideration or petition for review was filed as of November 17,
accounts (SOA) to your office. 2014."51 In any case, it is this court that has the authority to discipline
members of the bar.52

If that’s the case, why prolong the agony?

The issue for resolution is whether respondent Atty. Galarrita should
be held administratively liable for entering into a Compromise
Why bother after all to pursue this case when indeed, you are not Agreement without his client complainant Luna’s consent, then
interested to acquire the land and you are not bent in spending the refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received.
right remuneration for your undersigned counsel?
This court acknowledges the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of
I have nothing to hide. The money will be deposited in my savings the Philippines Board of Governors, with modification increasing the
account because I just could not handle that amount of cash in my period of suspension from the practice of law to two (2) years.
pocket.21
I
In his Letter22 dated February 27, 2006, Luna wrote:
Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with
Yes I’m not interested with that lot in Quezon, [and this is] the reason honesty and integrity in all their dealings.53
why I’m the one who propose to them [that] [w]e settle this case on
our own without any lawyer, they are the one[s] who insist to go to
Court. . . . This is what we come out to [p]ropose to them, with the Lawyers should maintain, at all times, "a high standard of legal
right amount to cover all those only been spent including Acceptance proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must
fee. You even waive[d] your fee on this, for every hearing which I perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts
couldn’t understand, [y]et we end up that we still going [sic] to pursue and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in
this case, it was discussed during my trip there. [This is] [t]he reason the Code [of Professional Responsibility]."54
I’m too surprised with your plea Agreement without my knowledge. 23
Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves "according
Luna mentioned that the delay in retainer’s fee payments was due to to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
Atty. Galarrita’s negligence in handling the case.24 well to the courts as to [their] clients[,]"55 and to "delay no man for
money or malice[.]"56

In his Letter25 of the same date, Atty. Galarrita explained: "The reason
this case was archived [was] because I could not attend several These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their
hearings for lack of meal and transport allowance going to Gumaca, clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of their
Quezon. . . . that’s moot and academic because this case was not relationship.57 Clients entrust their causes—life, liberty, and property—
dismissed by the court, at all."26 Atty. Galarrita then stated that "[f]or to their lawyers, certain that this confidence would not be abused.
all my shortcomings as a lawyer, I now ask forgiveness. . . . But let it
not be said that I betrayed you and your cases." 27 Complainant Luna entrusted respondent Atty. Galarrita with handling
the civil case involving a mortgaged land in Quezon Province.
In August 2009, Luna received a letter from one of the heirs of Jose However, without complainant Luna’s consent, respondent Atty.
Calvario, Emma C. Tayag, seeking delivery of the land title since they Galarrita settled this case with the other party.
paid the P100,000.00 settlement amount. 28 Another heir, Lutchiare
Calvario, wrote Luna in September 2009 again demanding delivery of Article 1878 of the Civil Code provides that "[s]pecial powers of
title.29 attorney are necessary in the following cases: . . . (3) To compromise,
to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from
Luna alleged in his Affidavit-Complaint that Atty. Galarrita has not a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to
remitted the P100,000.00 to date.30 He prays for Atty. Galarrita’s abandon a prescription already acquired[.]"
disbarment.31
The Rules of Court thus requires lawyers to secure special authority
In his Verified Answer,32 Atty. Galarrita prays for the dismissal of the from their clients when entering into a compromise agreement that
disbarment Complaint.33 He argues that he entered the Compromise dispenses with litigation:
Agreement by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney34 that includes this
purpose.35 He regularly submitted reports to Luna on developments SEC. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.  – Attorneys have
and possible settlement before he entered the Compromise authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation
Agreement.36 He submits that Luna "‘slept’ on his rights."37 thereto made in writing and in taking appeals, and in all matters of
ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special
Atty. Galarrita adds that under their General Retainership authority, compromise their client’s litigation , or receive
anything in discharge of a client’s claim but the full amount in ....
cash.58 (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
Atty. Galarrita contends that he holds a Special Power of Attorney to when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
enter into compromise agreements, but as found by the Investigating funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
Commissioner: 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
There seems to be a compelling reason to believe that
Rules of Court.
Complainant had not given any authority for the Complainant
[sic] to enter into Compromise Agreement at that precise
stage of the trial.  Firstly,  the Complainant was not made a party to In several cases, we have disciplined lawyers who failed or refused to
the Compromise Agreement despite the fact that he was not abroad remit amounts received for and on behalf of their clients. "The penalty
when the agreement was executed. Secondly,  there was no indication for violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
that he had agreed to the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for his usually ranges from suspension for six months, to suspension for one
withdrawal of the complaint. Thirdly,  he was not seasonably informed year, or two years, and even disbarment[,]"63 depending on the
of the execution of the Compromise Agreement/payment of the circumstances of each case.
P100,000.00 and came to know of the same only much later.
In Villanueva v. Atty. Ishiwata,64 respondent received four checks
Respondent argued that Complainant had previously executed a totalling P225,000.00 from his client’s employer after signing a
Special Power of Attorney wherein he authorized the former to " enter Quitclaim and Release pursuant to their compromise agreement.65
into possible amicable settlement or submit any matter to arbitration Despite full payment of settlement award, respondent only remitted
and alternative modes of dispute resolution, simplification of the P45,000.00 to his client and refused to deliver the balance.66
issues, the necessity of amendment to the pleadings, the possibility of Respondent explained that he delivered P90,000.00 to his client’s wife,
obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid but his secretary misplaced the signed receipts, and he deducted his
unnecessary proof, the limitation of the number of witnesses, the 25% attorney’s fees of P56,250.00 from the award.67 The balance left
advisability of preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner, the was only P750.00.68 This court found Atty. Ishiwata guilty of violating
propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor from the practice of law for one (1) year, and ordered him to restitute
be found to exist, the advisability of suspending the proceedings, offer to complainant the amount of P154,500.00 representing the balance
matters that may properly be considered under Rule 18 of the 1997 after P45,000.00 and the 10% attorney’s fees had been deducted from
Rules on Civil Procedure." It would seem, however, that despite the the settlement award.69
authority given to Respondent, the same SPA cannot justify
Respondent’s representation in the Compromise Agreement on
In Aldovino v. Atty. Pujalte, Jr.,70 respondent received P1,001,332.26
February 14, 2006. To dissect, the SPA was executed on
from the Branch Clerk of Court corresponding to the six shares of his
September 16, 2002 or a month before the filing of the
clients in the estate of their deceased mother, but respondent only
Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage. Thus, the conclusion
delivered P751,332.26 to his clients.71 Respondent explained that he
seems to be that the authority given therein to Respondent to
deducted P250,000.00 as his attorney’s fees, while complainants
enter into a possible settlement referred only to a possible
countered that respondent could only retain P14,000.00 as they
settlement that could be secured or firmed up during the
already paid him P86,000.00 for his services. 72 This court found Atty.
preliminary conference or pre-trial of the case.  In fact, the tenor
Pujalte, Jr. guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
of the SPA indicates that the SPA was precisely executed in order to
Responsibility, suspended him from the practice of law for one (1)
constitute Respondent as Complainant’s representative during the
year, and ordered him to return to complainants the amount of
preliminary conference or pre-trial.
P236,000.00.73

Assuming it can be inferred that the SPA and the authority given to
In Almendarez, Jr. v. Atty. Langit ,74 respondent received P255,000.00
Respondent can be liberally interpreted and allowed to extend up to
from the Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court representing the monthly
the time the Compromise had been executed, still the Respondent may
rentals deposited by the other party in the ejectment case respondent
not have faithfully performed his sworn duty to his client. During the
handled for his client.75 Respondent did not inform his client of this
mandatory conference, it was established that at the time the
transaction and failed to reply to the final demand letter for
compromise was executed the Complainant was not abroad and,
accounting.76 Respondent did not file an Answer to the administrative
therefore, given the current information technology it would have been
Complaint despite notice, and failed to appear at the mandatory
easy or convenient for Respondent to have informed his client about it.
conference.77 This court found Atty. Langit guilty of violating Canons 1,
Admittedly, his failure in this regard had only given Complainant the
11, 16, and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended
reason to cast doubt on his real intention in agreeing to the
him from the practice of law for two (2) years, and ordered him to
compromise agreement for and in his behalf.
restitute to complainant the amount of _255,000.00 with 12% interest
per annum.78
It would seem, however, that by Complainant’s act of demanding the
amount from Respondent, the former may have already ignored the
In Bayonla v. Reyes,79 respondent should have delivered to her clients
issue on the lack of authority on his part thus curing the defect on the
the amount of P123,582.67—the net amount of Bayonla’s share in the
latter’s authority to enter into the same. 59 (Emphasis supplied, citation
expropriation compensation after deducting respondent’s 40% share
omitted)
as attorney’s fees—but respondent only delivered P79,000.00 and
refused to remit the P44,582.67 shortage. 80 This court found Atty.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "[a] Reyes guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the Code of
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Professional Responsibility, suspended her from the practice of law for
conduct."60 Members of the bar must always conduct themselves in a two (2) years, ordered her to pay complainants the amount of
way that promotes "public confidence in the integrity of the legal P44,582.67 with 12% interest per annum, and render accounting and
profession."61 Even though complainant Luna effectively abandoned inventory.81
the issue on respondent Atty. Galarrita’s lack of authority to
compromise the civil case when he demanded the payment of the
In Jinon v. Jiz,82 respondent received P45,000.00 from his client for
settlement proceeds, this does not erase his acts of abusing the trust
transfer of title expenses.83 His client later learned that respondent had
and confidence reposed in him by complainant Luna.
been collecting the rentals from the property amounting to
P12,000.00, yet respondent only turned over P7,000.00.84 Complainant
II terminated respondent’s legal services and demanded the return of the
amounts.85 Respondent countered that his legal services covered
negotiation and sale of the property for a fee of P75,000.00. 86 This
Worse, respondent Atty. Galarrita not only failed to promptly inform
court found Atty. Jiz guilty of violating Rules 16.01, 16.03, and 18.03
complainant Luna of the former’s receipt of the P100,000.00
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him from the
settlement proceeds but also refused to turn over the amount to
practice of law for two (2) years, and ordered him to pay complainant
complainant Luna. This court has held that "any money collected for
the amount of P45,000.00 with 6% legal interest per annum from date
the client or other trust property coming into the lawyer’s possession
of demand until finality of Decision, then 12% until fully paid. 87
should promptly be reported by him [or her]." 62 Rule 16.03 under
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
In this case, respondent Atty. Galarrita entered into the Compromise
Agreement involving complainant Luna’s property without informing
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
him. Even though complainant Luna forewent the lack of authority
his client that may come into his possession.
issue, respondent Atty. Galarrita still continued to act in bad faith by
refusing to turn over the P100,000.00 settlement amount received. restitution as concomitant relief in administrative proceedings when
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner respondent’s civil liability was already established:
found that:
Although the Court renders this decision in an administrative
On another point, there seems no cogent proof, too, that Respondent proceeding primarily to exact the ethical responsibility on a member of
had been advised of Complainant’s supposed agreement to Mr. the Philippine Bar, the Court’s silence about the respondent lawyer’s
Calvario’s payment of P100,000.00. Despite R[es]pondent’s allegations legal obligation to restitute the complainant will be both unfair and
that he had informed Complainant about his so-called counsel’s report, inequitable. No victim of gross ethical misconduct concerning
it remains undisputed that the Complainant did not give him any the client’s funds or property should be required to still
express approval of the same. litigate in another proceeding what the administrative
proceeding has already established as the respondent’s
liability. That has been the reason why the Court has required
There is to the undersigned enough indicia  to conclude that
restitution of the amount involved as a concomitant relief in the cited
Respondent had committed bad faith in entering into the Compromise
cases of Mortera v. Pagatpatan, supra, Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit,
Agreement. From February 2006 to November 2010, or a period of
supra, Small v. Banares, supra.97 (Emphasis supplied)
four (4) years, Respondent failed to turn-over the P100,000.00 he had
collected from Mr. Calvario to Complainant. Worse, he failed to
seasonably inform Complainant about the same. He kept the money Respondent Atty. Galarrita does not deny his receipt of the
and claimed he had the right to retain the same invoking the counsel’s P100,000.00 but justifies his refusal to turn over the amount by
right to a retaining line [sic]. He pointed out that Complainant had invoking jurisprudence on retaining lien.98 The Rules of Court provides
incurred accrued attorney’s fees which he is bound to pay under the for attorney’s retaining lien as follows:
general retainer agreement. Thus, it is not amiss to state that he
entered into the said agreement with the odious motivation to hold on
SEC. 37. Attorney’s liens.  – An attorney shall have a lien upon the
to it and pave the way for the payment of his attorney’s fees. In so
funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come
doing, he violated the trust reposed in him by his client and violated
into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and
Rule 16.03 of the Code of [P]rofessional Responsibility.
disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the
satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon
As to Respondent’s invocation of the lawyer’s retaining lien and his all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in
retention of the money, the undersigned deems the same unlawful. pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of
True, the Code of Professional Responsibility allows the lawyer to apply his client, from and after the time when he shall have caused a
so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client." But this the court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and
provision assumes that the client agrees with the lawyer as to the shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his client
amount of attorney’s fees and as to the application of the client’s fund and to the adverse party; and he shall have the same right and power
to pay his lawful fees and disbursements, in which case he may deduct over such judgments and executions as his client would have enforce
what is due him and remit the balance to his client, with full disclosure his lien and secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements.99
on every detail. Without the client’s consent, the lawyer has no
authority to apply the client’s money for his fees, but he
First, "lawyer[s] [are] not entitled to unilaterally appropriate [their]
should instead return the money to his client, without
clients[’] money for [themselves] by the mere fact that the client[s]
prejudice to his filing a case to recover his unsatisfied fees.
[owe] [them] attorney’s fees."100 They must give prompt notice to their
clients of any receipt of funds for or on behalf of their clients. 101
....
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for a
On Respondent’s argument that prescription has already set in against lawyer’s duty to "account for all money or property collected or
Complainant, suffice it to state that the rules have already been received for or from the client."
supplanted by a new set of rules which do not anymore carry the
same.88 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Respondent Atty. Galarrita refused to comply with these duties,
warranting his suspension from the practice of law.
Administrative proceedings require only substantial evidence. 89 This
court accepts and adopts the findings of the Integrated Bar of the
Second, the elements required for full recognition of attorney’s lien
Philippines Board of Governors, but with modification increasing the
are: "(1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client’s
period of suspension from the practice of law to two (2) years
funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney’s
considering that respondent Atty. Galarrita not only compromised
fees."102
litigation without complainant Luna’s consent, but also refused to turn
over the settlement proceeds to date.
Respondent Atty. Galarrita must prove the existence of all these
elements. However, this is not the main issue in this disbarment case
III
against him, and the validity of his retaining lien defense was not
established. Counter evidence even exists such as respondent Atty.
This court sustains the order for respondent Atty. Galarrita to return Galarrita's Letter dated August 12, 2003 waiving any compensation for
the amount of P100,000.00 to complainant Luna. his services in the foreclosure case. 103 Complainant Luna also raises
respondent Atty. Galarrita's negligence in handling the case, and lack
of supporting receipts for the incurred expenses respondent Atty.
In Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar,90 the parties entered a Deed of Assignment
Galarrita seeks to reimburse.104
after which respondent received P937,500.00 from complainant as
partial payment for the townhouse and lot. 91 However, respondent did
not turn over this amount to developer Crown Asia, and no copy of the Nevertheless, we maintain that the disposition of this case is without
Contract to Sell was given to complainant. 92 This court suspended Atty. prejudice to the filing of a collection case for retainer's fee against
Cezar from the practice of law for three (3) years, but did not grant complainant Luna.1âwphi1
complainant’s prayer for the return of the P937,500.00.93
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita
Ronquillo  held that "[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a
involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the court into stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
the conduct of one of its officers." 94 Thus, disciplinary proceedings are dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to complainant
limited to a determination of "whether or not the attorney is still fit to Jun B. Luna the amount of Pl00,000.00, with legal interest of 6% per
be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar." 95 annum from February 2006 105 until fully paid, without prejudice to the
filing of a collection case for retainer's fee against complainant Luna.
Later jurisprudence clarified that this rule excluding civil liability
determination from disciplinary proceedings "remains applicable only Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature — for instance, Confidant to be entered into respondent Atty. Galarrita's records as
when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client attorney. Copies shall likewise be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
in a transaction separate and distinct [from] and not intrinsically linked Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
to his professional engagement."96 all courts concerned.

This court has thus ordered in administrative proceedings the return of SO ORDERED.
amounts representing legal fees. This court has also ordered