EN BANC
GORETTI
ONG,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
4724
April 30, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
JOEL M.
GRIJALDO,
Respondent. D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
The fiduciary duty of
a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique
position
of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling.
Once
this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only
in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is
eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required
to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of their profession.[1]
In this administrative case for disbarment, respondent Atty. Joel M.
Grijaldo
failed to perform his sworn duty to preserve the dignity of the legal
profession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Goretti
Ong is a widow residing in Talayan Village, Quezon City. Sometime in
the
early part of 1996, she engaged the services of respondent, a
practicing
lawyer in Bacolod City, as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No.
52843
before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City, Branch
5,
against Lemuel Sembrano and Arlene Villamil for violation of Batas
Pambansa
Bilang 22.[2]
During one of the hearings of the case, the accused offered to amicably
settle their civil obligation to complainant by paying the amount of
P180,000.00.
Complainant accepted the offer on the condition that payment shall be
made
in cash.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the hearing held
on July 17, 1996, respondent advised complainant to wait outside the
courtroom.
When he came out, he handed to complainant cash in the amount of
P100,000.00
and Metrobank Check No. 0701263862 for P80,000.00, postdated August 16,
1996, drawn by Atty. Roger Reyes, counsel for the accused. Complainant
objected to the check payment and refused to settle the case, but he
assured
her that the check was drawn by a reputable lawyer. Complainant was
prevailed
upon by respondent into signing an affidavit of desistance, but she
instructed
him not to file it in court until the check is cleared.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon presentment on
its maturity date, the check was dishonored due to a stop-payment order
from the drawer. Complainant immediately informed respondent of the
dishonor,
and the latter told her that he will talk to Atty. Reyes about it.
Later,
when complainant met with respondent in Manila, he relayed to her Atty.
Reyes’ offer to replace the check with cash. Several weeks passed
without
any payment of the proceeds of the check, despite complainant’s
repeated
telephone calls to respondent. Sometime in December 1996, she suggested
that respondent move for a hearing of the case, but he told her that
courts
are not inclined to set hearings near the Christmas season.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 17, 1996,
complainant personally went to Bacolod City to inquire about her case.
She was surprised to learn that the same was dismissed as early as
September
26, 1996.[3]
Apparently, respondent submitted her Affidavit of Desistance[4]
and, on the basis thereof, the public prosecutor moved for the
dismissal
of the case which was granted by the court. When complainant confronted
respondent, he admitted to her that he had already received the amount
of P80,000.00 from Atty. Reyes but he used the same to pay for his
financial
obligations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, on April 2, 1997,
complainant filed an Administrative Complaint against respondent for
disbarment.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
alleged in her complaint that respondent represented her in another
case,
entitled "People of the Philippines versus Norma Mondia," also for
violation
of B.P. 22, where she was the offended party. Respondent approached the
accused, Norma Mondia, and offered to delay the hearing of the case in
consideration of the amount of P10,000.00. However, Mondia did not have
that amount of money. Attached to the complaint is the affidavit of
Norma
Mondia attesting to this fact.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, Henry Tiu,
a former client of respondent, executed an affidavit, which is attached
to the complaint, alleging that he gave respondent the amount of
P3,000.00
for the purpose of posting his bail bond, but respondent did not post
his
bail which resulted in Tiu’s arrest.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, a certain
Luz Dimailig, whose affidavit is also attached to the complaint,
averred
that respondent represented her as counsel for plaintiff in a civil
case
before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 52; that the
case
was dismissed by the trial court; that the appeal filed by respondent
to
the Court of Appeals was dismissed due to his failure to file the
appellant’s
brief; and that the petition for review before the Supreme Court was
denied
for lack of proof of service on the Court of Appeals, late filing and
late
payment of docket fees. Moreover, Dimailig alleged that she gave
respondent
the amount of P10,000.00 for settling the said civil case, but she
later
learned that he did not remit the money to the defendants or their
counsel.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 25, 1997, respondent
was required to file his comment within ten days from notice.[9]
Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time, alleging that he has
not
received a copy of the complaint.[10]
On February 5, 1998,[11]
complainant furnished respondent a copy of the complaint. However,
despite
receipt of a copy of the complaint, respondent still failed to file his
comment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 19, 1998,
respondent was required to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily
dealt with or held in contempt for failing to file his comment.[12]
Respondent filed a Compliance, stating that the copy of the complaint
he
received from complainant was not legible. Complainant again furnished
respondent with a clearer and more legible copy of the complaint
including
its annexes; but respondent still did not file his comment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, on June
14, 2000, another show cause order was issued against respondent.[13]
Respondent replied by stating that the quality of the copy furnished
him
by complainant was worse than the first one he received.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dissatisfied with respondent’s
explanation, respondent was ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00, which
he
complied with on November 27, 2000.[14]
However, he again failed to file his comment and, instead, moved for
additional
time to file said comment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 13, 2001,
this case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for
investigation, report and recommendation.[15]
The records of the IBP show that respondent has not filed his comment
to
the complaint. On January 18, 2002, the Investigating Commissioner,
Manuel
A. Tiuseco, submitted his report recommending the disbarment of
respondent.[16]
However, in its Resolution No. XV-2002-553 dated October 19, 2002, the
IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty of disbarment and
recommended
instead respondent’s indefinite suspension from the practice of law for
grossly immoral conduct and deceit.[17]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful review
of the records of this case, we find the recommendation of Commissioner
Manuel A. Tiuseco well-taken.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is clear that
respondent
gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client,
the
complainant. Were it not for complainant’s vigilance in inquiring into
the status of her case, she would not have known that the same had
already
been dismissed on September 26, 1996. Respondent deliberately withheld
this fact from her, notwithstanding that she talked to him sometime in
December 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall serve his
client
with competence and diligence. More specifically, Rule 18.03 and Rule
18.04
state:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 18.03. A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 18.04. A lawyer
shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond
within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent breached
his duty to his client when he failed to inform complainant of the
status
of the criminal case. His negligence shows a glaring lack of the
competence
and diligence required of every lawyer.[18]
His infraction is rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that
complainant
is a resident of Quezon City and the case was filed in Bacolod City. It
was precisely for this reason that complainant engaged the services of
respondent, a Bacolod-based lawyer, so that her interests in the case
may
be amply protected in her absence. Respondent’s failure to look after
his
client’s welfare in the case was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty
and a breach of the trust and confident which was reposed in him. In a
similar case, we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is settled that a
lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish
to
become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject
however,
to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to
such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to
him. Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform his
client
of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to
his
client’s request for information. Respondent’s failure to communicate
with
his client by deliberately disregarding its request for an audience or
conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed
of the developments in and the status of its case.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Worse, when respondent
used the money which he received from Atty. Reyes to pay for his own
obligations,
he violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
states that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession." Furthermore:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 16.01. A lawyer
shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
from
the client.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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 lees 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent’s misappropriation
of the money entrusted to him and his refusal to account for it to his
client despite repeated demands were competent proof of his unfitness
for
the confidence and trust reposed on him. His acts showed a lack of
personal
honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence.
He held the money in trust for his client as settlement of the case he
was handling. Upon receipt thereof, he was under obligation to
immediately
turn it over, in the absence of a showing that he had a lien over it.
As
a lawyer, he should have been scrupulously careful in handling money
entrusted
to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity
and good faith on his part is exacted.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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 is
obligated
to report promptly the money of his client that has come into his
possession.
He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his
personal purposes without his client’s consent. Respondent, by
converting
the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent,
was
guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. Not only did
he degrade himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he besmirched the fair
name
of an honorable profession.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aside from violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent’s failure to
promptly
turn over the money to his client and his conversion of the same for
his
personal use rendered him liable for contempt under Rule 138, Section
25
of the Rules of Court, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unlawful retention of
client‘s funds; contempt.--- When an attorney unjustly retains in his
hands
money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for
contempt
as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions;
but proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal
prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, respondent
violated his oath of office and duties as counsel when he approached
his
client’s opponent and offered to delay the case in exchange for money.
His offer to delay the case would have frustrated the interests of his
client which he had sworn to protect. As a lawyer, respondent should
avoid
any unethical or improper practices that impede, obstruct or prevent
the
speedy, efficient and impartial adjudication of cases.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Once he agrees to take
up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must
always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must
serve
the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s
cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. Elsewise stated, he
owes
entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance
and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost
learning
and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his
client,
save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his
client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to
assert
every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it
is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the
correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the
bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the
ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect
of the community to the legal profession.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent’s act of
propositioning his client’s .opponent and offering to delay the case
against
her was intended to benefit the latter. Hence, such act amounted to
double-dealing
and conflict of interest, and was unethical practice of law. Attorneys,
like Caesar’s wife, must not only keep inviolate their client’s
confidence,
but must also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of
justice.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, respondent’s
cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the directives of this Court
to
file his comment constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution.
His conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
resolution
of this Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it
be
complied with partially, inadequately or selectively.[25]
Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply therewith not only betrays a
recalcitrant
flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of our lawful
orders which is only too deserving of reproof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Any departure from the
path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his
profession
shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority.
This
is especially so, as in the instant case, where respondent even
deliberately
defied the lawful orders of the Court for him to file his comment on
the
complaint, thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due the
courts.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, respondent’s
transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct
and
grossly unethical behavior which caused dishonor, not only to
complainant,
but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be
denied
that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
diminished
whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and confidence.[27]
He has proved himself unworthy of membership in the legal profession
and
must, therefore, be disbarred.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, for dishonesty,
grave misconduct, and grossly unethical behavior, respondent ATTY. JOEL
GRIJALDO is DISBARRED from the practice law. His name is ordered
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is further directed to
PAY
complainant Goretti Ong the amount of P80,000.00 within ten (10) days
from
notice of this Decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Decision shall
take effect immediately. Copies thereof shall be furnished the Office
of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record; the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the Office of the President; the
Department
of Justice; the Court of Appeals; the Sandiganbayan; the Philippines
Judges
Association; and all courts of the land for their information and
guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quisumbing, J.,
on leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, 10 June 2002, citing Sipin-Nabor v.
Baterina,
A.C. No. 4073, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA 6.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 2-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., pp. 11-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., pp. 16-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., p. 32-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., p. 68.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., pp. 94-97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., p. 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Zarate-Bustamante v. Libatique, A.C. No. 4990, 26 September 2001, 366
SCRA
8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Navarro v. Meneses, CBD A.C. No. 313, 30 January 1998, 285 SCRA 586.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Busiños v. Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349, 22 December 1997, 283 SCRA
407.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Manila Pilots Association v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No.
130150,
1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 30.
[23]
Ellis v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5505, 27 September 2001, 366 SCRA 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Philippine National Bank v. Cedo, A.C. No. 3701, 28 March 1995, 243
SCRA
1, 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Guerrero v. Judge Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Busiños v. Ricafort, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |