[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 118-2003, August 29, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 118-2003, August 29, 2003 ]

[ OCA CIRCULAR NO. 118-2003, August 29, 2003 ]

TO:

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBJECT:

SUSPENSION OF ATTY. JUAN B. CABREDO IV FOR ONE (l)YEAR

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the decision of the Second Division of the Supreme Court in the Administrative Case No. 5831, entitled "CESAR A. ESPIRITU vs. ATTY. JUAN B. CABEEDO IV" dated January 13, 2003, to wit:

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on May 8, 2001 by complainant Cesar A. Espiritu against Atty. Juan Cabredo IV, for failure to fulfill a fiduciary obligation to a client.

"xxx

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client;

Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a hen 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.

The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary, it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. [10] Hence, in dealing with trust property, a lawyer should be very scrupulous. Money or other trust property of the client coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported by the latter and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances, be commingled with his own or be used by him. [11]

In this case, respondent claims that he did not know about the receipt by his secretary on the amount of P51,161.00 received from Esphar until he read the first demand letter of the company, which stated:

March 21, 2000

JUDGE JUAN CABREDO

Cubao, Quezon City

Dear Judge:

Due to your failure to make interbank deposit as what we have agreed upon yesterday, March 20, 2000, we are sending bearer, Mrs. MARTTESS ALEJANDRINO, to collect the amount of P51,161.00 representing payment intended for BPI FAMILY BANK which was coursed through your office per your instruction.

We are hoping that you will not fail to return the money through bearer hereof Her specimen signature is shown below for identification purposes.

Thank you.

Very truly yours.

ESPHAR MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

Specimen Signature of:

(signed)

MARTTESS ALEJANDRINO

However, even after receiving this notice and two other demand letters, respondent never returned the money of complainant nor paid it to the bank. Indeed, it is improbable that respondent's secretary failed to inform complainant about the receipt of such a substantial sum of money. In failing to account for the money of his client, respondent violated not only the Code of Professional Responsibility but also his oath to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients .[12] Like judges, lawyers must not only be proper but they must also appear to be so. This way, the people's faith in the justice system would remain unshaken. [13]

It appears that respondent, while now a practicing lawyer was a former judge. [14] Thus, he should have known the ethical precepts guiding lawyer who handle money given to them in trust by their clients and the necessary consequences for violation thereof, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides :

Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. Hie practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice, (emphasis supplied)

From the evidence presented by complainant, which respondent failed to rebut, it is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent amounted to deceit, as well as a violation of his oath, for which he should be penalized with either disbarment of suspension While we agree with the findings of the investigating commissioner, we find the recommended penalty of suspension for three months to be too light In Reyes v. Maglaya . [15] a lawyer was suspended for one year for failing to return Pl,500.00 belonging to his client despite numerous demands. In Castillo v. Taguines. [16] a lawyer failed to deliver to his client P500.00, representing the monetary settlement of a civil suit despite demands. To make matters worse, he fooled the client by issuing a bouncing check. He was suspended for one year.

For his failure to account for P51,161.00 received from his client and to restitute it without any reason, respondent should be suspended for one year.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Juan Cabredo, IV, is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year and ORDERED to immediately return to Esphar Medical Center, inc. the sum of P51,161.00, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let copies of the Decision be entered in his record as an attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippiines (IBP) and all the courts in the country for their information and

SO ORDERED ."

Respondent received a copy of this decision on February 4, 2003.

August __ 29___ , 2003.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Court Administrator

[10] Angeles v. Uy, 330 SCRA 6 (2000)

[11] Marquez v. Meneses 321 SCRA1 (1999), citing Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics

[12] Rule 138, RULES OF COURT

[13] See Angles v. Uy, 330 SCRA 6 (2000)

[14] Annex H of Complaint, Rollo, pp. 27, 32-33., Complaint refers to respondent as "Judge Juan Cabredo IV" in a letter to the IBP on Bar Discipline and two demand letters.

[15] 243 SCRA, 214 (1995)

[16] 254 SCRA, 554 (1996)