Legal Ethics Case Digest:

KIMELDES GONZALES vs ATTY. PRISCO B. SANTOS

Principle:

The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly 0duciary; it demands great fidelity and good faith on the part of the lawyer.

Facts:

Kimeldes Gonzales filed before IBP against Atty Santos for dishonesty and abuse of trust and confidence of his client.

Kimeldes Gonzales, complainant, bought a parcel of land in Zamboanga City. As she was then living in Quezon City, complainant appointed her sister, Josephine Gonzales, to act as her representative in matters concerning said property.

Thereafter, Josephine engaged the services of respondent to: (1) register the title in complainant’s name; and (2) commence an ejectment suit against the occupants of the property. By that reason, Josephine gave to respondent sums of money in order to commence the suit.

Complainant then entrusted the owner’s duplicate copy of the Transfer Certi0cate of Title (TCT) to respondent for its cancellation. Later, a new title was issued in complainant’s name. This, however, was never surrendered to Josephine, despite her efforts to claim it.

Complainant discovered that her property had been mortgaged to A88 Credit Corporation by one Norena, and that the respondent never filed an ejectment case against the occupants of her property despite receipt of the corresponding filing fees.

In answer, respondent denied having any participation in Norena’s act, and that he did not engaged to file an ejectment suit against the occupants of complainant’s property and insist that he likewise never agreed to file an ejectment suit.

IBP – Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged and suspended from the practice of law for three years.

1^st charge – the respondent was complicit in the constitution of a real estate mortgage over complainant’s property.

2^nd charge – the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the ejectment suit through a handwritten receipt.

IBP – Governor resolved to approve and adopt the same.

Issue:

Whether Atty Santos is guilty for all charges filed against him

Ruling:

The Court approved the report and recommendation of IBP.

On 1^st charge – the respondent is administratively liable for failing to deliver within reasonable time the title to complainant or to her sister, Josephine. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly 0duciary; it demands great 0delity and good faith on the part of the lawyer. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) requires lawyers to account for all money and property collected or received for and from their clients. In addition, Rule 16.03 mandates that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

In the present case, there is no doubt that respondent’s services led to the issuance of a new title in complainant’s name. Accordingly, and upon demand by complainant’s representative, Josephine, respondent was expected to timely deliver the title to her. This, respondent failed to do.

On 2^nd charge – the respondent guilty of abusing his client’s trust and con0dence. Canon 17 of the CPR directs a lawyer to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Respondent violated his client’s trust when he received said amount despite knowing that he could not 0le the ejectment suit because some of the occupants of complainant’s property are his friends. Indeed, he was not able to 0le the case but without informing complainant of his reasons.

Hence, Atty Santos is suspended from the practice of law for three years.