EN BANC
A.C. No. 11058, September 01, 2020
RITA P. COSTENOBLE, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JOSE L. ALVAREZ, JR., RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
This is a complaint filed by Rita P. Costenoble (Costenoble) against Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. (Atty. Alvarez, Jr.) for committing fraudulent acts.1 Costenoble narrated that, on June 15, 2011, she hired Atty. Alvarez, Jr. to register two parcels of land. She gave Atty. Alvarez, Jr. a check for P115,000.00 to cover fees and expenses.2
She also entrusted Atty. Alvarez, Jr. with the certificates of title of her real properties.3 In turn, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. issued an acknowledgment receipt, and assured Costenoble that the transfer of titles will be completed by September 2011.4
After several months, Costenoble tried to contact Atty. Alvarez, Jr., but failed. In a visit to Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s office, Costenoble was able to talk to Atty. Jose Alvarez, Sr., who assured her that he will take care of her case in behalf of his son. However, when Costenoble's secretary inquired with Atty. Alvarez, Sr., the latter got angry and said, "saan ako magnanakaw ng [P] 115,000.00 [?]"5 Thereafter, Costenoble sought assistance from the Office of the Barangay in San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna, however Atty. Alvarez, Jr. never appeared despite notice.6 On October 9, 2012, Costenoble sent Atty. Alvarez, Jr. a demand letter, asking for the return of the certificates of title and the sum of P115,000.00 previously paid to him.7
In the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) -Commission on Bar Discipline, Costenoble sought for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez, Jr. for his dishonest and fraudulent acts, and unprofessional conduct.8 After filing a motion for extension, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. failed to file his verified answer and position paper.9 Thus, the case was submitted for resolution. The investigating commissioner rendered his Report and Recommendation,10 dated August 19, 2014, recommending Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors then issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-910 dated December 13, 2014 adopting and approving the commissioner's report and recommendation, with modification in that Atty. Alvarez, Jr.'s period of suspension was increased to three years.11 Thereafter, the records of the case were transmitted to the Court for final action.12
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP that Atty. Alvarez, Jr. is administratively liable for neglect of duty, and failure to return the money and documents given to him by Costenoble.
We cannot overemphasize that the practice of law is a profession. It is a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character.13 When a lawyer agrees to act as a counsel, he guarantees that he will exercise that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients' interests, and take all steps or do all acts necessary therefor.14 He is duty-bound to exert best efforts and serve his client with utmost diligence and competence.15 This obligation is borne by the fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and his client that prescribes a great fidelity upon the lawyer.16 Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for free.17
A lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him/her constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.18 From the perspective of ethics in the legal profession, a lawyer's lethargy in carrying out his duties is both unprofessional and unethical.19 It betrays his avowed fidelity and renders him unworthy of the client's trust and confidence. Ingrained in this professional duty is the obligation of the lawyer to hold in trust and account all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the money for his own. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.20
In this case, the legal service of Atty. Alvarez, Jr. was engaged by Costenoble for the purpose of registering her properties. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. received pertinent documents and a check worth P115,000.00 for fees and expenses as evidenced by an acknowledgement receipt. However, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. failed to perform his engagement to register the properties of Costenoble. Despite repeated follow-ups by Costenoble, Atty. Alvarez, Jr. did not respond and even refused to meet with her. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. neglected to perform his duties and failed to return Costenoble's money including the documents he received despite demand. These acts of Atty. Alvarez, Jr. constitute a clear violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 17, and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his profession.We stress that a lawyer ought not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the court and society.21 The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to his client is considered per se a violation of the lawyer's oath.22
Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.x x x x
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.x x x x
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.
Very truly yours, (SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* On leave.
1 Sent through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' email (ibp_ [email protected]) on October 30, 2012; rollo, pp. 11-13. See also id. at 2-4.
2Id. at 7-8.
3Id. at 5-6.
4Id. at 9.
5Id. at 3.
6Id, at 10.
7Id. at 14.
8Id. at 38-40.
9 A notice dated May 23, 2013 was sent by the Commission; id. at 15. Atty. Alvarez, Jr. filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer [id. at 16-18], but failed to thereafter submit his answer. After several settings for mandatory conference, the Commission ordered the submission of verified position papers; id. at 35.
10Id. at 58-62; penned by Commissioner Hannibal Augustus B. Bobis.
11Id. at 57. The Resolution reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryRESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, x x x finding Respondent's failure to immediately account Complainant's money in violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03, Canon 18, and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from thepractice of law for three (3) years. (Emphasis in the original.)12Id. at 56.
13Caballero v. Ally. Pilapil, A.C. No. 7075, January 21, 2020.
14 See also Francia v. Ally. Sagario, A.C. No. 10938, October 8, 2019; Sps. Gimena v. Atty. Vijiga, 821 Phil. 185, 190(2017).
15 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. See also Sps Gimena v. Ally. Vijiga, supra.
16Caballero v. Ally. Pilapil, supra; Arde v. Ally. De Silva, A.C. No. 7607, October 15, 2019.
17Aboy, Sr: v. Atty. Diocos, A.C. No. 9176, December 5. 2019; Sousa v. Ally. Tinampay, A.C. No. 7428, November 25, 2019.
18Francia v. Atty. Sagario, supra, citing Agot v. Rivera, 740 Phil. 393, 400 (2014).
19Belleza v. Atty. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815. July 25, 2009.
20Caballero v. Atty. Pilapil, supra; Arde v. Ally De Silva, supra.
21Spouses Vargas, el al, v. Ally. Oriño, A.C. No. 8907, June 3, 2019, citing Vda. De Enrique: v San Jose 545 Phil. 383 (2007).
22Id. citing Nebreja v. Reonal, 730 Phil. 55, 61 (2014)
23Caballero v. Atty. Pilapil, supra note 13.
24Sps Gimena v. Any. Vijiga, supra note 14 at 193, citing Dumanlag v. Any. Intong, 797 Phil. 1 (2016); Villaflores v. Atty. Limos, 563 Phil. 453, 463 (2007).
25 796 Phil. 27(2016).
26Supra note 14.
27Supra note 13.
28 705 Phil. 321 (2013). as cited in Caballero v. Atty. Pilapil. supra note 13.
29 493 Phil. 24 (2005).
30Supra note 1 7.
31 A.C. No. 12202. December 5, 2019.
32Supra note 17.
33Aboy, Sr. v. Ally. Diocos. supra note 17.
34United Coconut Planters Bank v. Noel, A.C. No. 395 1, June 19, 2018, 866 SCRA 386, as cited in Sousa v. Atty. Tinampay, supra note 17.
35Villa v. Atty. Defensor-Velez, supra note 31.
36 See Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravailla-Ona, 789 Phil. 619 (2016). In this cited case, the responsndet lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to her and for her failure to return the fees she received. Therein respondent lawyer was previously suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.
37 737 Phil. 1 (2014).
38Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, supra.
39 See Caballero v. Atty. Pilapil, supra note 13.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary